Good afternoon and welcome to today's Plenary meeting. Before we begin, I wish to inform the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 26.75, that the Bus Services (Wales) Bill was given Royal Assent on 2 February.
7. Will the First Minister make a statement on the Welsh Government's discussions with the UK Government regarding the devolution of policing and justice? OQ63777
Thank you for that answer. It's a shame that your colleagues in Westminster are making that quite so difficult to happen.
Wales is in an abnormal situation. We have a Parliament that makes laws, but decisions about how they are policed are made in another country. Commissions and experts have argued that policing decisions should be made in Wales to cut confusion and complexity. But despite you, First Minister, making the case for Wales having these powers, you have been rebuked by your Westminster colleagues. The Home Secretary, when asked if she supports devolving policing said, simply, 'No, I do not'—the damning dismissiveness of Westminster to Wales in four wicked words. You keep telling us that Wales's best interests are served by Westminster. We are still waiting for any evidence to back that up. On rail funding, on policing powers, UK Labour seem to have abandoned Wales. First Minister, isn't their derision an insult not only to you as First Minister, but to a nation?
There are always going to be differences between a Welsh Labour Party and the party at the UK level. That's the nature of the devolved settlement. That's not a problem; that's something we've got to become—[Interruption.] You haven't understood the nature of the constitutional debate. If that's the case, I think it's really important that people recognise that 50 per cent of police funding in Wales comes from devolved sources. Devolution of policing was something that was recommended by the Silk commission, the Thomas commission, and by the McAllister and Williams commission. So, we have been clear. Our motivation, though, is to make sure we improve policing on the ground. I don't want to see constitutional reform for the sake of it. This is not just a power grab on the road to independence. We believe that designing replacement arrangements for police and crime commissioners is an opportunity to take a significant step towards full devolution.
Thank you very much for your response to Delyth. It's clear that policing requirements in Wales are very different to what happens in other parts of the UK. There are examples of the Dyfed-Powys police and crime commissioner having highlighted specific rural issues that are entirely different, and he is limited because of the structures that he has to work within.
Now, you've emphasised so often in this Chamber the importance of that partnership in power. Three independent commissions have set out clearly the need for the devolution of justice to Wales, and that is your stance as a party too. It's clear that you have failed to convince your Prime Minister in Westminster of this need, and the same is true of your Members of Parliament. So, can I ask you when you will succeed in showing us that this partnership in power is delivering for Wales?
Well, we're really pleased that the White Paper, which talks about merging police forces, recognises the unique circumstances in Wales. And I'm pleased that, before the announcement, the Minister for Social Justice had a meeting with the policing Minister, and they emphasised clearly that the minimum we want to see is that police forces are not merged across the border. I've been clear that we want to go further, I've been clear that we want to see devolution when it comes to policing in Wales, and we'll continue to press for that.
First Minister, you and I will disagree on policing and where it would be best located, whether that be in Westminster or here in Cardiff. But one thing I think we will both agree on is that if the separatists had their way and they broke up the United Kingdom, policing would be fundamentally weakened in these islands and the criminals will benefit from it. So, will you agree with me that the United Kingdom is the best entity to deliver law and order through these islands, because that co-operative working and that strong union, working together, of the countries of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland protects the citizens of this great country of ours and that's what we should be focused on, rather than the narrow, separatist, independent argument that the other side always throws at us?
We want to see strong devolution in a strong UK. That is absolutely clear, and I believe we're the only party who wants to see that. Let me also make it clear that we want to see change when it comes to policing, not because we want to see constitutional reform for the sake of it, on a road to independence, but because we want—[Interruption.]—we want to see better provision for the people in Wales. It is important, I think, when we design a replacement for the new police commissioners that it's a real opportunity for us to grab this agenda, to talk about a different way of accountability, and we will continue pushing for that to happen. It of course makes sense for us to co-operate across the border when it comes to policing, when it makes sense. Just think about terrorism—we'll never have the kind of absolute expertise in terrorism that you may get in a place like London. We would have to work with them and depend on them—not something you could do in an independent Wales.
First Minister, I very much welcome the clarity of your statement this afternoon, that the Welsh Government supports the devolution of policing. It is important—[Interruption.] You always know you're right when Plaid Cymru and the Tories are shouting at you at the same time. The clarity of your statement is rooted in the delivery of social justice to people across the whole of Wales. John Thomas, in his report, made the point very, very clearly that we need the devolution of policing and criminal justice not simply because we want to fix a constitutional jigsaw, but because Wales deserves it. Wales deserves the equality of treatment in the United Kingdom, as is enjoyed in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. By devolving responsibility for criminal justice and policing, we can also deliver social justice in this country. That is the Labour case. First Minister, I hope you will continue—[Interruption.]—you will continue to campaign for the devolution of policing and the devolution of criminal justice.
Llywydd, I've been clear, including in my speech at the Institute for Government, that we need to make progress on the devolution of policing and justice. Policing and justice aren't abstract ideas. The Thomas commission showed that devolution could cut crime. They can make communities safer and support victims better. Now, we're in active discussions with the UK Government on probation, on youth justice, on policing, and it's our clear view that those discussions now need to deliver real progress. Now, we're focusing limited resources where they make the biggest difference, and updating Members at key moments rather than just talking for the sake of it. We are working behind the scenes all of the time on these important issues. [Interruption.] You hear that Plaid Cymru's answer to this is simply, 'We will shout louder'. Good luck with that one.
First Minister, I do not, in all honesty, welcome the clarity of today's statement because I knew exactly what your view on all of this is. We all know what the party's view is, and my view, on this matter. The truth is, we speak to this and we make the same arguments week after week. We can say whatever we like here, but Westminster isn't going to listen.
One strong argument in favour of the devolution of policing would be to show that we use the influence that we already have effectively, because it would change this place if we were to devolve justice and policing, with over a third more additional work. I fear that we are missing opportunity after opportunity to show that we are serious about devolving policing. For example, the police are constantly saying that they didn't get the spare COVID jabs at the right time, and that they had to police the front line without having had those jabs. Applicants for the police still have to apply in English, without being able to apply for posts through the medium of Welsh. In the university context, Cardiff University hasn't been recognised for its police academy research programme. The Welsh Government pledged in December to put this right, but it still hasn't happened. First Minister, I've raised these issues many times, things that would show that the Welsh Government is serious about this.
We're working very hard to see what more we can do in terms of youth justice and ensuring that we do devolve that to Wales. We agreed that officials in both Governments would work together to look at options to redraw responsibilities in the youth justice sphere. That included strategic oversight, partnership and governance arrangements, and funding youth justice services as a starting point.
We had 14 years of austerity. During that time, the Tories have brought our criminal justice system to a precipice, to a state of near collapse, due to underfunding and due to a cut of 20,000 police officers, which are only now just being restored. The issue for us is about justice and policing being local—local policing and local justice. With the abolition of the police and crime commissioners, there is now a democratic deficit in the accountability and transparency of the delivery of policing in conjunction with all the other devolved functions that we know have to take place. That is the gap, that is the vacuum that now has to be filled, and the only logical way, presumably, is by the actual devolving of responsibility for policing, but also by the beginning of the decentralisation of the justice systems, starting with youth justice, which is already 90 per cent, effectively, devolved. Those who have sat in those youth courts can see that nearly every issue that arises in those courts relates to devolved functions. These are arguments now that I think have to be made with UK Government. They have to understand that we cannot go on as we are, and this is the only rational and logical way forward for the better delivery of justice and the better delivery of policing. Do you agree?
Thanks, Mick, and thanks for reminding us that what happened under the Tories is that we did see significant cuts when it came to policing, and the Welsh Government stepped in and took over those responsibilities with people on the front line in our communities. It made a huge difference and was massively appreciated by Welsh police forces.
You're quite right—I think there's a real opportunity now, with the end of police and crime commissioners, to actually look at the accountability—who they're accountable to. As I say, 50 per cent of the funding for police comes actually from Wales. So, it's quite right that, if we're making that kind of contribution, of course there should be more accountability. That is something that we will continue to push. We will not hold back from that.
You're quite right on youth justice—so many of the tools to ensure that young people are diverted from a life of crime lie in the hands of the Welsh Government and Welsh public services. Clearly, what we want to see is the same kind of treatment for Wales as you see in the memorandum of understanding, for example, that has been developed with Manchester. That would be a first step on that road and would be a very welcome step forward.
I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear that there is a higher proportion of 18-year-olds going into higher education from Islwyn compared to the rest of Wales, which I think is great news in a deprived area and shows the difference a Labour Government can make. Raising the aspirations of young people in those communities—young people, I think, who are as clever and as able as in any other part of the United Kingdom—I think that's something that this Welsh Labour Government is committed to and we want to see more of that.
Diolch. Thank you very much. As you said, First Minister, the Western Mail has reported that applicants from the most deprived parts of Wales who sent in their applications by the January deadline rose by 13.6 per cent compared with last year. The Welsh increase was markedly higher than increases seen in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is welcome news and shows the justification of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service removing the application fee for students receiving free school meals, which will now be extended to care leavers. And institutions with the most stringent entry requirements saw the biggest increase in applications compared with last year. So, First Minister, what do you believe this tells us about the quality of education throughout Islwyn that students leaving school and college are setting their sights on university education in ever-increasing numbers and that they are targeting study at some of the UK's most prestigious seats of learning?
Diolch, Rhianon. Those figures, I think, are genuinely encouraging. A 13.6 per cent rise in applications from learners from our most deprived communities, higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom—I think that that tells us something really important. It shows that young people in places like Islwyn are aiming high. They're leaving schools and colleges with the confidence to apply in a way that perhaps they haven't had in the past. And when learners from those communities are increasingly applying to universities who've got very high entry requirements, I think that speaks volumes about the level of support that they're receiving right from the word 'go', right from breakfasts in schools and support right from the beginning, but also the support that those teachers place around them. I know that, as a Welsh Government, we think that you should always keep those doors open, and our student grant system, of course, and the generous offer that we give—the most generous and progressive offer in the United Kingdom—I think is something that should be celebrated and we should remind young people of that in May.
First Minister, it comes as no surprise to me that the number of university applicants across Wales is certainly dropping. Now, currently, we sit at the bottom of the league table for university applications, with less than a third of Welsh students applying to university. In Newport and Islwyn, the student entry rate was 31 per cent in 2025 and it's remained virtually static for the last five years. A combination of higher living costs, due to your partners in Westminster, higher tuition fees and poor financial decisions, such as a £24 million redundancy cost at Cardiff University, has no doubt put students off from going to university at large, and yet key support such as degree apprenticeships is limited in Wales, and wider choices won't be available until Medr introduces them in 2027. First Minister, do you therefore take responsibility for the loss of students applying for Welsh universities by failing to introduce more choice in degree apprenticeships, and will you admit that the Welsh Government is really behind the times when it comes to this policy? Thank you.
No, I don't, and I think it's remarkable, actually, the difference that the Welsh Labour Government has made. I remember, when I went to university, about 7 per cent of the population went to university. In the year 2000, it was about 39 per cent. By today, it's 54 per cent. That is a significant increase, and that's thanks to the support that we have given as a Welsh Labour Government.
I think it's probably an opportune time for me also to say something about the proposals in relation to the repayment of the student loan fees. It is important to set out that the Welsh Labour Government currently gives the most generous student support package anywhere in the UK. Only the Welsh Labour Government Ministers can set the repayment threshold for Welsh borrowers. The UK Government can't determine the threshold for Welsh students, and any change requires a decision by the Welsh Government. And I want to make it clear today that we have no intention of freezing the thresholds and following England in this regard. We'll work with the UK Government to understand the full implications of the change. We need a proper impact assessment, and that's clearly where we stand.
Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, in January, just last month, your Government used its deal with Plaid Cymru to push through a budget that keeps Wales as one of the highest tax parts of this United Kingdom. For over a quarter of a century, your party has overseen a low-growth, high-tax cycle that has left Welsh households poorer than their neighbours. You recently told this Senedd that there's no magic money tree, yet you continue to prioritise spending on constitutional distractions, bureaucracy and matters for which you have absolutely no responsibility, rather than much-needed tax relief for hard-working people. Now, we have Senedd elections, which are looming, in May, and I think the people of Wales deserve a straight answer. So, can I ask you today that, should there be a Welsh Labour Government after those Senedd elections, will you rule out any increase to the Welsh rates of income tax for the duration of the next Senedd term—yes or no?
Well, I can't believe I'm getting a question on high rates of tax from somebody in a party that left us with the highest rate of taxation that we've had since the second world war. Now, I wouldn't have minded if what we'd had was fantastic public services and a massive injection of money into our public services as a result of that. We didn't see anything like that. What we had was economic chaos as a result of your Government over all these years. You talk to me about where we stand on these things. You tell me where you're going to get the £300 million that you claim that you're going to take away in terms of business rates locally. Where are you going to get that money from? Let's talk about where that money's going to come from, because I think that the people of Wales want to hear—when you come up with a proposition, they want to hear the reality of what you're going to cut. We haven't heard that from you. We haven't heard it from any other political party. When it comes to what we'll do in relation to that, we'll make it clear in our manifesto where we stand.
You didn't give us a straight answer. I asked you for a 'yes' or 'no': are you going to raise taxes or not? You then went on to talk about the record—the so-called record—of the Labour Government in Westminster, which has saddled us with higher taxes, higher debts, higher unemployment and higher levels of inflation. That's the record since July of 2024. So, I asked you a simple yes/no question, and you declined to give me an answer. I suspect I really do know why—because we all know that your cosy colleagues in Plaid Cymru have long flirted with the idea of using tax powers to further their separatist agenda. They have called in the past for parity with the higher tax regime in Scotland and advocated for increases in every single level of the rates of income tax.
Now, in your recent stitch-up with Plaid, you yet again did exactly what they wanted you to do in order to keep your Government afloat. So, can you tell the workers of Wales why on earth they should trust a Labour Party that is increasingly dancing to Plaid Cymru's tune? Isn't it the truth, First Minister, that while we Welsh Conservatives do have a plan to cut the basic rate of income tax, to save the average hard-working family £450 per year, your plan is simply to follow Plaid Cymru's lead, reach your hands deeper into the pockets of those hard-working people, on the road that, I'm afraid, will lead to the disastrous break-up of our precious United Kingdom?
Look, my commitment is to grow the economy. That's my interest. That's where our focus is. And we are seeing improvements when it comes to, for example, the numbers claiming unemployment. The numbers claiming unemployment today in Wales are lower than they are in the United Kingdom as a whole. So, the focus has to be on taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to write a new chapter for this country. We've seen those 14 years of cuts, and now we have the taps flowing again. The investment summit demonstrated that people are willing and ready to come and invest in Wales. They, I think, will be less willing if they see chaos of the kind that is being threatened in Wales. You want to cut the basic rate of income tax, then you have to tell people that they will have to wait longer for those waiting lists to come down; they will have to see the money going into additional learning needs in schools going down. That is the reality of what you're proposing. We will never follow Plaid on a road to independence. We are a party that is committed to devolution and committed to being a part of the United Kingdom.
You say you want to write a new chapter; you're, frankly, writing your own obituary. That's what we see week in, week out, with the decisions that you are making. Let's look at the facts: council tax has trebled since 1999 and it's rising faster here in Wales than in other parts of the United Kingdom; business rates are higher here, putting Welsh pubs, shops and high streets at risk; you're pressing ahead with a tourism tax, which will deter visitors and the spending that comes with them; and you're even, today, going to push up the price of booze in another hit on ordinary people's pockets that are already stretched to breaking point. So, the choice is now very, very clear, isn't it, for people here in Wales in May. You've refused to rule out tax rises, Plaid Cymru advocates for tax rises, and that's what they're going to get if they allow another Labour and Plaid stitch-up. So, they can choose that or they can choose a truly fresh start with the Welsh Conservatives that believes that people—we're a party that believes that people—not politicians know how to spend their money best. Why is it, First Minister, that you are so afraid to let the people of Wales decide how to spend their hard-earned pay? Why is it that left-wing parties like yours and Plaid Cymru always want to take more from people's pockets and give them less in return?
Well, I'm glad you've given me an opportunity to talk about the situation in relation to the economy, because we recognise that a lot of people are struggling. Some of the people who have been struggling for a while are businesses, and, today, I'm really pleased that we've been able to announce a 15 per cent increase in terms of the support package when it comes to pubs and hospitality. We're going further than they're going in England, providing that support not just to pubs, but also to hospitality, to restaurants, to cafes, because we recognise that they are under pressure. So, we are pleased to see, because we've had a consequential amount of money from the United Kingdom Government, that we've been able to support those people in those communities.
I think what we've seen in the years preceding a UK Labour Government in Westminster was cuts and chaos. You are currently a party in disarray, with no plan for Wales. How bad must it be for the Tory party right now that it makes Reform look attractive? That is a bad situation to be in.
Thank you, Llywydd. Last night I was in a room full of businesspeople who share the same aspiration as me of seeing a prosperous Wales and a wealthier Wales. The challenges faced by Welsh businesses, of course, are very real, and Brexit, COVID and the economic climate more generally have raised questions about the viability of a number of sectors. Hospitality is one of those. We are all aware of stories about businesses, be they pubs or restaurants and so on, closing because they can't make ends meet. Now, pub owners, for example, have been speaking to me recently about the impact of an increase of £6,800 per year in their business rates from April. So, I welcome the decision taken by the First Minister today to provide an additional £8 million for the food and drink hospitality sector. But, of course, a sector worth £4 billion for the Welsh economy and that employs well over 150,000 people can't survive on the basis of a one-year settlement. So, does the First Minister agree with me on that?
Well, we've been clear that what we are giving today is that 15 per cent support to non-domestic rates relief for pubs, restaurants in Wales. As I say, that's wider than the English offer, benefiting 4,400 properties in Wales, and there'll be an opportunity for people to apply for that support via local authorities from April. As you are well aware, we do budgets on an annual basis in this place, so to give a commitment without knowing what's ahead, I think, would be irresponsible.
You talk about talking to businesspeople. I was talking to businesspeople last week as well. They're terrified. They're terrified of the prospect of chaos after a May election. They're terrified of the instability that could come. And the one thing that I know about business is that what they want is stability. They want to know what is coming next. They want to have sight of what the future looks like. They can work around anything if they've got some sense of that. They have no sense of that after May and they are very, very concerned about it, particularly when it comes to renewable energy.
I agree with you that business is looking for stability, and it's why the pro-business attitude shown by Plaid Cymru is so attractive to so many people leading businesses in Wales now. The Welsh Government's written statement makes reference to using its own budget, as well as recently announced consequential funding, to support the hospitality sector. I'd be grateful if the First Minister could provide some more detail on that. Can she confirm, first of all, the breakdown between consequential funding and money that comes from within the Welsh budget? Also, what will be the nature of support using Welsh Government's own resource, and from where has the additional spending power been found in the 2026-27 budget?
From April, every pub in England will get 15 per cent off its new business rates bill, and bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. It's unclear from today's announcement whether the hospitality sector in Wales is being offered the same multi-year deal, because the written statement only makes reference to the next financial year. I'll make the point that multi-year deals can mean a number of different things. What would be the First Minister's longer term plan, because my feeling is that the hospitality sector needs more assurance moving forward?
I think if we had offered a multi-year deal, I'd have been criticised for being presumptuous about what would happen post May. I'm actually respecting the people of this nation who will be making decisions on what happens next. You ask about where that money is going to come from. Five million pounds will come as a result of the consequential coming from the UK Government and £3 million from the Welsh Government. That's part of the transition scheme for the revaluation.
I did make the point that multi-year deals can mean different things, including structural changes that can be ongoing. Short-term measures are often sticking plaster solutions. Looking to the longer term, it's clear to me that the business rates system in Wales is fundamentally broken. The hospitality sector is facing an existential crisis, many will tell you. It's a system that needs urgent and radical change, something that a pro-business Plaid Cymru Government would make a priority. It is time, I think, to tip the scales in favour of smaller businesses by designing a taxation system that is firmly on the side of small and medium-sized enterprises. We currently have three multipliers. At the moment, the lowest one excludes hospitality. A Plaid Cymru Government would right that wrong. That's part of our plan. What's the First Minister's?
We told you today what we're doing to support them. Precisely what we're demonstrating is that we recognise there's a difference. Let's also recognise that, actually, there are changes happening within our communities, and the way that people behave in relation to their public services and the businesses in their communities is changing. If people want to see those businesses succeed, they need to use them. They need to stop buying things online. They need to get out of their homes and stop watching Netflix. They need to stop buying that bottle of wine at home and go out to the pub. That is the reality of what's happening here. You can't expect the state to step in and do the work that the public should be doing.
I think that what we have in a Welsh Labour Government is a Government that is serious. I think these are serious times. They need serious leadership. I refuse to be distracted by the doom and gloom-mongers. Just this week, what we've managed to do is demonstrate that we are absolutely powering here in the last months of this Government. We have just seen the best recycling rates that we've ever seen—record-breaking results once again. We've delivered the baby bundle this week. Today, we’ve also set out what we’re going to do when it comes to clean water, a Green Paper, determined to clean our rivers and prosecute polluters. And let’s not forget that Plaid Cymru voted against—against—the measures that would have supported cleaning up our rivers. Stronger regulation, better accountability, these are the things that I think the people of Wales want to see in their next Government, and that’s what we’ll be putting to the people of Wales.
Plaid is the party of protest. People, I think, want services, not slogans. They don’t want to see fantasy politics, they don’t want to see people playing with their lives and livelihoods. What we need is serious Government at a serious time.
We are aware that many people are concerned that they can't get access to an NHS dentist as many dentists have left the NHS for the more lucrative private sector work. We've done a huge amount of work already to change the system, and this has led to 530,000 people now managing to get access to an NHS dentist, which they were not able to do before. But we want to go further. Reforming the NHS general dental services contract is the most important step we can take towards improving access to NHS dentistry. The new contract, which comes into effect in April 2026, incentivises prevention and the provision of dental treatment on a risk and needs basis, whilst at the same time providing fair and attractive remuneration for the dental profession.
I'd like to just concentrate on that dental contract, and a consequence of that, from what I can see, is that a long-standing NHS dentist in my region has just made the decision to go private. Crown Cottage Dental Care of Bedwas informed all patients that they would be making the switch in a letter, due to the changes the Labour Government has made to the dental contract. A constituent has been in touch with my office who’s now nearly 50 years old and has been with this particular practice since he was a child. He has been told he would have to pay a fixed subscription fee to remain at the dentist in excess of £1,000 a year for his family of four.
It is well documented that there are other dentists that have gone private recently for the same sorts of reasons. NHS dentists in Wales have been warning of the collapse in NHS provision since I came into office in 2021. Have you been ignoring these warnings, First Minister, as First Minister or as health Minister before that? More importantly, what do you say to families like the one I mentioned, who have been told to find £1,000 a year extra for basic dental care, and what are you doing about it?
Well, look, it's always disappointing when a dentist decides to reduce or end their NHS commitment. When that happens, it's important to state that the funding for the lost provision remains with the health board, and it is replaced at the health board level in terms of other services that can be given.
I think it's important to get a context on this. The value of returned contracts is less than 3 per cent of commissioned activity in monetary terms, so it's below £7.9 million-worth of contract returns that were seen in 2023-24. So, I do think it's important to get a sense of what's happening across the country. There are pockets where it's very challenged and we are aware of that. That's why, for example, we incentivise dentists to go to rural areas. We give them a £7,000 additional salary uplift to train and work in rural areas.
But the other thing we need to do is to make sure that we train more Welsh domiciled dentists, and I'm really pleased to see that Cardiff University, for example, have increased significantly the number of dentists who are from Wales. So, last year, about 15 per cent of all the dentistry students came from Wales. I'm really pleased to see that today that's up to 46 per cent of new dental students, as a result of us putting pressure on them to recognise that you need to train Welsh dentists, and you need them to actually train and do their placement work within Wales, where they're then more likely to stay.
As you've acknowledged, First Minister, access to an NHS dentist is one of the most pressing issues that people in Wales face, and particularly in my region of North Wales. Just recently, we've heard it announced that six dental practices in North Wales are due to close from March this year, leaving thousands of my constituents in North Wales without access to their routine NHS dental care. And, as you've acknowledged, it's not an isolated problem, but it's certainly an acute one for my constituents in North Wales. Dentists themselves are clear that the current system is unsustainable. Contractual arrangements, recruitment and retention challenges, and rising costs are driving practices away from that NHS provision. All of this, of course, is completely within your control and your gift to do something about it, as it is, of course, a completely devolved issue at the behest of the Welsh Labour Government here. So, with the new contract coming into place in April this year, will you be able to guarantee that no more dental practices in my region of North Wales will close?
What I can tell you is that, since 2022, we've seen 530,000 new patients being taken on by the NHS in Wales. I think that is a remarkable turnaround, and it is something that they're looking at with envy in England. That's before we look at the 213,000 urgent appointments—urgent appointments—for new patients across Wales. What we recognise is, as I say, there are pockets where we need to run in and to reinstate the provision. Sometimes that reprocurement takes a bit of time, but that's precisely what is going on in North Wales in those areas that you're talking about. One of the things we were determined to do was to make sure that we didn't have a system where people had to phone around lots and lots of different practices. So, we're very pleased that that dental access portal has now been launched, and that's simplifying the route of access and making it fairer for everyone.
Good afternoon, First Minister. You are right to say that the money remains with the health board and that there is an incentive for rural dentists, but there are no dentists who want to go into the NHS because of the contract and because the changes in the contract in April, as we've heard from Peredur, really mean that dentists are not willing to go into NHS dentistry.
In Powys, 4,000 adults are on the NHS waiting list. In Radnorshire, which is paying the price for its rurality, we have Knighton, a town of 3,000 people, and Llandrindod Wells, a town of 6,000 people, with no NHS dentist at all. I met a gentleman from Llandrindod Wells who, five years ago, started dental treatment on two teeth. In that time, he has lost a tooth and, five years later, is still waiting for the treatment he desperately needs and is in significant pain.
We hear what you're saying about the contract, we hear what you're saying about the money staying with the health board, but NHS dentists are not wanting to go into NHS dentistry in rural Wales. So, we really need a significant change to the contract that's coming up in order to ensure that we attract those dentists to NHS treatment across Wales, but particularly in rural areas. What is your Government going to be doing about that? Diolch yn fawr iawn.
We're serious about making sure that we can give that provision. I've been really interested to see in Powys that, actually, it's the health board undertaking a lot of this responsibility themselves, using dental therapists. I think that we have to make better use of dental therapists, and that's why I'm pleased, for example, that we are seeing more of those qualify in Bangor University for the first time last September. I want to see more of those. I want to see recognition that, actually, a huge amount of work that is done by dentists can be done by dental therapists. That is certainly part of what we're planning to do as a Government: increase the numbers of students who embark on those qualifications.
Making sure our roads are safe is a fundamental responsibility of the Welsh Government, and sometimes we need to commission work to ensure that those roads are safe by carrying out work that, unfortunately, can be disruptive for people living in the area. Work started last week on two important projects on our trunk roads in Monmouthshire: the replacement of the safety barriers on the A40 between Raglan and the Hardwick roundabout at Abergavenny, and the installation of a pedestrian crossing on the A4042 at Penperlleni.
Thank you, First Minister. When I laid this question, there were significant concerns in many of our communities in the constituency about those ongoing roadworks on the A4042. A traffic regulation order was published suggesting that the road could be closed periodically over a 7.5-mile stretch for up to six months. Unsurprisingly, this created real alarm among residents and businesses. Fortunately, clarity was eventually provided following several interventions, but it should not have taken letters to the Cabinet Secretary, business statements and, indeed, today's question just to obtain basic information. Businesses and residents need clear, timely communication, and that didn't happen here.
Similarly, with the road traffic order put in place over two years ago on the A40 and the M48 for barrier works, there was no detail or time frames, and no explanations were provided. It has taken over 130 weeks and only recently has progress started, as you pointed out. This lack of clarity helps no-one, not councils nor communities. First Minister, will your Government reflect on the need for significantly improved clarity in the information issued by the Welsh Government where it is likely to affect so many people and businesses?
I want to reassure you that the notices don't represent the actual duration of restrictions and shouldn't be interpreted as long-term road closures. You'll be aware that that has always been the position from your time working as a councillor. This order related specifically to the temporary traffic management required for the Penperlleni pedestrian crossing works. I just want to reassure people that access is to be maintained to the Goose and Cuckoo pub—we come back to 'Let's make sure that we use our local pubs'—and I think it is important that we recognise the importance of those rural and business communities.
Supporting communities to maintain access to essential local services is a key priority for the Welsh Government, particularly in rural areas where dispersed populations can be disproportionately affected by the withdrawal of everyday services. As an example of the steps we have taken, we are investing a further £112 million in local government in 2026-27, which will support key services—a proposal that your party failed to support.
One thing that I was disappointed about with this Government was when I've previously raised the closure of banking services. The last Lloyds Bank has shut in Pembroke Dock, meaning that south Pembrokeshire has no banking services whatsoever from high-street banks now. I've raised this on the floor of this Chamber before and was promised support from this Government in my campaign. I've had over 1,500 signatures from the community in support, advocating for a banking hub in south Pembrokeshire, yet I've had no correspondence, further to my business statement, from this Welsh Government. So, it's all warm words, First Minister, you saying that you're supporting rural services and rural communities, but I've had nothing from your Government. Why is that?
I will follow that up, but let me tell you that there are huge pressures on banking across Wales. I think there have been other announcements in Pembrokeshire recently that were also concerning. I don't think the Government can step in on every occasion. It is the private sector that I think needs to take responsibility here. But of course, when we recognise that there is a vast area where there is no possibility to use those services, we can do what we can to step in and to encourage others to step up to work together. I will ask the Minister responsible to follow that up.
The nuclear supply chain is extremely valuable to the Welsh economy, and we remain committed to its development. One hundred and ninety Welsh suppliers won contracts at Hinkley Point C, with £188 million received and £815 million total spend forecast. Sizewell C has also pledged to spend at least £900 million with Welsh suppliers. Combined, this shows the Welsh supply chain is very well placed to secure opportunities from the Wylfa small modular reactor project.
Thank you, First Minister, for highlighting the current value of the nuclear supply chain at both Hinkley and Sizewell. The nuclear supply chain in Wales comprises 345 different business organisations. When you spoke earlier about wanting to grow the economy in Wales, to have more high-value, well-paid jobs, this sector is perfectly placed to do just that, with the potential for a sixfold increase over the next decade.
That is borne out by cross-party support on the policy front, but even more importantly it's about having final investment choices made by the current UK Government. In Wales, that is most visible at Wylfa, with Rolls-Royce technology. Highlighted today at the cross-party group on nuclear that I chair, those opportunities will only come when this Government works alongside other partners to do that.
Can you confirm that it is the policy of this Government to support new nuclear in Wales as part of that future energy mix? Can you also confirm that it is the policy of this Government to work alongside the UK Government, especially the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to use every lever to grow the nuclear supply chain here in Wales? If so, can you confirm that those are the instructions you have given to your officials in the Welsh Government to work alongside partners and to grow the nuclear supply chain economy here in Wales?
We're on the cusp of a new chapter, I think, in the economy of Wales. I think an unstable new Government could put some of that investment in jeopardy, as many companies have warned us. I've tirelessly advocated for investment at Wylfa. I'm very pleased the UK Government committed to this, which I think will be transformational for the economy of north Wales. I have no hesitation in saying that of course we support new nuclear and that we will work with the UK Government to make sure that we land as much benefit as we can for supply companies in Wales.
In fact, I was with one of those potential companies that could supply to north Wales last weekend, the Ledwood engineering company. They've already landed huge contracts for Hinkley C. They are eyeing up the opportunities for Wylfa. We have to make sure that we line things up. I've already asked for one of our future Cabinet meetings to be focused on how we can really sweat the opportunities that come from that investment in north Wales.
Although we recognise there's a lot more to do, we're delighted that our massive increased investment in bringing down waiting lists in Wales is paying dividends. Last month, we saw the biggest drop in waiting lists we've ever seen—23,000 fewer in a month. I think it's worth reminding people that the average wait in Wales is 19 weeks. Over the last 12 months, the percentage of people waiting for two years has fallen by over 80 per cent in the Aneurin Bevan and Cwm Taf health boards. Across Wales, that figure has dropped by 90 per cent since the peak of the pandemic. This is extraordinary work by the hard-working members of the NHS in Wales.
First Minister, thank you for your response, but I'm going to have to disagree with you, because, in my view, our NHS is on its knees thanks to decades of mismanagement and incompetence by your party. A constituent of mine has been on an NHS waiting list for orthopaedic surgery and was told he could expect a wait of around 98 weeks. It got to the stage where he could not take the pain any longer. He was taken off work in chronic pain, which took its toll on his mental health and had a major impact on his ability to support his father, who at the time was undergoing cancer treatment. Struggling to cope with the pain, my constituent sought S2 funding, which allows eligible Welsh residents to get NHS-funded planned medical treatment in an EU country, but he was refused because it was deemed his wait was justifiable. In the end, my constituent took himself to Lithuania for the operation at a cost of £3,500, which he met privately with the help of family savings and a loan. Thankfully, my constituent has had his operation and is on the mend, but not everyone has access to funds to pay for their care privately. First Minister, how is it acceptable that my constituent—and many others, by the sounds of it—are being forced to spend thousands on travelling abroad for treatment, when they should be able to access it closer to home in a timely manner? Will the Government commit to reviewing the criteria for S2 funding to ensure that it is fit for purpose? Thank you.
The last time we had the highest satisfaction rates in the NHS was back in 2010. You may think about what happened at that time. That was when we had a Labour Government. That was when there was an understanding that the NHS and public services had to be supported. Then we had 14 years of Tory cuts and austerity, 14 years where we had to defend the devolution settlement. Of course, now that the taps are being switched on again, it will take us a bit of time to recover, but recover we are. That is why I'm delighted to see that, particularly in Aneurin Bevan, we've seen those longest waiting lists come down by 80 per cent.
Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip
Thank you very much, Llywydd. There are two changes for this week's Plenary business. Today's debate on the legislative consent motion on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill has been postponed. The Business Committee has also agreed to postpone tomorrow's short debate until next week. The business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement, which is available to Members electronically.
Trefnydd, I would like to request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales on the delivery of road projects in west Wales. As you know, over the years, I have continually raised traffic and safety concerns about the A487 in Lower Town Fishguard in my constituency. Despite positive commitments from the Welsh Government over the years, there has been no progress in improving safety in this area for the local community. At present, the road layout requires pedestrians to cross the same bridge used by vehicles of all sizes, which, as you can appreciate, creates a situation that is extremely unsafe for residents. This is a matter that is above party politics, and I have been working with the local MP to secure a safe solution for the community. We met with the Cabinet Secretary in June last year to discuss this, and since then we've been trying to secure a meeting with Welsh Government officials. I chased the Welsh Government in October, and we've still had no response to my correspondence, so, Trefnydd, the community are desperate to see some action, and so I'd be grateful if the Welsh Government could provide an update on its road projects in west Wales, so that we can understand exactly what is being done to improve the local infrastructure and make it safer for all of my constituents.
Diolch yn fawr, Paul Davies. This is obviously very focused; you mentioned road safety issues in Fishguard in your constituency. I'm glad you've had collaboration with elected representatives, and presumably that also means Pembrokeshire council, because they get allocated road safety funding. But I will follow up the question about correspondence and meeting with officials of the Cabinet Secretary to look at that one issue in terms of road projects in west Wales.
Trefnydd, I'm sure Members will have heard me raise the plight of the residents of Clydach Terrace in Ynysybwl, who face the highest risk to life from flooding, more than any other community in Wales. Yesterday, Rhondda Cynon Taf council's cabinet agreed to buy the street and demolish the homes. I welcome that a solution has been agreed, but I hope we can recognise how significant this decision is, and also how traumatic it is for residents having to abandon their homes, some of them having lived there for decades.
I'd like to request a statement from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for climate change outlining what lessons have been learnt from this process. Obviously, there was extensive Welsh Government funding into modelling, feasibility studies and so on, but RCT council have found a solution at the end of the day. How is the experience of residents of Clydach Terrace helping to shape future policy? Because other communities will now be asking, 'If they've been supported, when will we be supported?'
Diolch yn fawr, Heledd Fychan. I think many of us heard the substantial coverage yesterday about the situation in Ynysybwl. In fact, I had the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf council explaining the situation very fully—Councillor Andrew Morgan—and, obviously, this must have such an impact on the people in that community, in the Clydach Terrace. There is also strong recognition of the impact of climate change. So, I think that your points about lessons learned, and what this means for the future, are really important.
So, we'll be clearly sharing this point that you've made today with the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary, who is fully aware of this, and also recognise that Rhondda Cynon Taf has worked very closely with the residents, in terms of addressing this very difficult situation. And lessons must be learned for the future, in terms of the impact of climate change on our communities.
Could we please have a statement about the progress of moving towards removing profit from foster and residential care for children in Wales? I don't know if the Trefnydd saw the press reports over the weekend about how in England now, three London firms are now the biggest providers of foster carers in England. And, of course, a recent report found that the profit margins of the largest companies are around 19 per cent higher than would be expected in an effective market, and the industry is worth about £2.2 billion in England alone.
So, don't you think that we really should be proud as a Welsh Government that we are putting the welfare of our looked-after children ahead of making profit? I look forward to hearing some more details about how we are moving towards that.
Thank you very much, Julie Morgan. This is where Wales is leading the way. We will be the first UK nation to legislate to remove profit from children's residential and foster care. Of course, it's all part of the foundation of the transformation of children's services. And I pay tribute to Julie Morgan, who relentlessly drove this forward in her formal ministerial role, and, of course, that's been taken forward, and we've passed the legislation here.
Yes, I saw that press reporting on the profits that are being made in this sector—horrific in terms of the account of those profits, and where that money is not going to our children. I think, also, we have to recognise that local authorities are making progress now. From April this year, new arrangements will see public money reinvested in services for children, rather than extracted as profit. That's the key point, isn't it, that the investment is in children, not in profit. It will improve services, make them sustainable and help the professional development of the workforce.
Just again for the record—and this was passed by this Senedd—we've committed £68 million revenue over the next three years, and a further £75 million has been committed over the period 2025-26 to 2028, and it's supporting local authorities in delivering the agenda. We have also provided grant funding to the Association of Directors of Social Services Cymru, helping them plan this at a national level—planning new services and mitigating increases in placement costs. Of course, these are transitional arrangements, which are so important. It does allow existing providers time to move to not-for-profit models. And care-experienced young people in Wales—and you were very much at the forefront of this, Julie—were directly involved in the development of this legislation. And, of course, the core principle of this change is that care for looked-after children should be based on compassionate and public value, not on profit and commercial return.
Trefnydd, may I ask for a statement on the future of park-and-ride services in Cardiff, and what the Welsh Government are doing to promote them? As you'll no doubt be aware, there is currently a proposal to close the Cardiff East park-and-ride station at Pentwyn, and use the land for commercial redevelopments, with a data centre being one of the options. But ending this service is extremely short-sighted and will impact on patients, staff and visitors, who rely heavily on the facility to access the University Hospital of Wales. This hospital is already impossible to park at, and the current public transport provision is completely inadequate for the public's need.
Trefnydd, when members of the public talk about Welsh Government failure on transport, this is exactly the kind of situation that they mean. A central transport infrastructure is being stripped away, piece by piece, with no credible alternative in place. Hundreds of people rely on this park and ride every single day, and removing it will not improve access, it will create chaos. At the very same time, people are being lectured by this Government to use public transport more. So, Trefnydd, I have no doubt that a statement from this Welsh Government criticising Cardiff Council's decision would go down very well with the people this Parliament claims to represent. Thank you.
Thank you, Joel James, for that question. This is a question for Cardiff Council, of course. It's very linked to their responsibilities and services in relation to road safety and active travel. So, those points I'm sure you'll be making directly with the council.
I'd like to request a statement, please, from the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership on the potential impact of the proposals by the Welsh Rugby Union to cut one of Wales's four professional regions, with the Ospreys widely understood to be at particular risk. Over the last weeks, there's been growing frustration and anger at these proposals, and this isn't a debate just about professional sport. From schools to cafes, from community rugby clubs to local councils, there is deep concern about the wider cultural and economic impact of removing a professional team that underpins participation pathways, local pride and regional identity, and regeneration opportunities. There's also serious concern about the future of the plans to redevelop St Helen's ground in Swansea. The loss of the Ospreys could place that regeneration at risk, damaging both local economic ecosystems that rely on sport-related activity and the city's sporting profile.
So, given that the Welsh Government has invested public money in professional rugby, and given its commitments to regeneration, cultural and physical well-being, I'd like to know what discussions the Minister has had with the WRU about the full social and economic consequences of these proposals, and what steps the Government will take to ensure any decisions by the WRU do not cause lasting damage to communities in my region.
Thank you for raising that question and that point, and drawing attention to a very live issue in terms of the impact of that loss. This is, of course, the Ospreys, in terms of impact, particularly on Swansea, and the surrounding area, region and Wales. This is a matter for the WRU, of course, but it is important that elected representatives, indeed, at local and national level, can raise these issues.
Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I wanted to ask you, please, for a statement on Flying Start and the implementation of Flying Start across Wales. I was pleased to be able to see that the funding for Flying Start had been carried forward from the deal that we made last year. Flying Start and the provision of free childcare for every child in Wales is absolutely essential for a number of issues, as we know. It helps to tackle child poverty, it makes sure that parents have the opportunity to get back into work, and it makes sure that children are ready to be educated in school. So, it's absolutely essential that we ensure that, across Wales, particularly in rural areas, there is the opportunity to ensure that Flying Start is available to all children. So, please, can I ask you for a statement that outlines how many children are now taking up Flying Start and what the plans are going forward as well? Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Diolch yn fawr, Jane Dodds. Thank you for raising this important question, because we're making excellent progress rolling out high-quality childcare to two-year-olds across Wales through the Flying Start programme. It's a phased roll-out; it very much takes account of the capacity, as you know, within the childcare sector. Just the latest Flying Start childcare data shows that, over the two years of phase 2 delivery, we exceeded our target—9,500 additional two-year-olds in this area. The latest statistics show that, in this period, we have offered childcare places to over 13,400 children and families across Wales. Over 10,000 of these children have benefited from the programme by taking up the Flying Start childcare place. Indeed, the latest data shows over 80 per cent of children taking up the Flying Start childcare place. And, of course, it is thanks to your engagement as well and support that there's an additional £25 million to further expand—and that's phase 3. That does depend on take-up rates, but we would expect phase 3 to reach more than 4,000 additional children. I'm delighted that both Merthyr and Swansea have now expanded their offer to all two-year-olds in their areas.
I'm requesting two Government statements. The first one is on Gaza. While the media regularly loses interest in Gaza, I and many of my constituents are concerned about a humanitarian crisis that, unlike the tv cameras, does not go away. Last week Israel killed Palestinians in Gaza in the latest violence, to add to the more than 70,000 Palestinians who have been killed during the war in Gaza. What is the Welsh Government doing to support humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and promote a two-state solution involved in the creation of a Palestinian state?
Also, can we have a Government statement on the role of further education in the economy in upskilling the workforce and providing the opportunity for learning throughout life? There is a major role for further education. If we intend to grow the Welsh economy and to have the necessary skilled workforce for economic growth, we need a thriving further education sector.
Thank you very much, Mike Hedges. Of course, it's just so disheartening to hear of further deaths in Gaza. I'm glad you've raised this question so that we can say that we sincerely hope that—. Actually, we're at a very fragile state of the ceasefire, and we really sincerely hope that there is a more permanent peace solution. We always hoped that this was the start of a more permanent peace solution in terms of the ceasefire. You know that Welsh Government has donated a total of £450,000 to the Disasters Emergency Committee's middle east humanitarian appeal, and £4 million has also been raised by people and communities across Wales. There has been no further dialogue, we understand, in terms of, for example, the Welsh Government and UK Government, in terms of the two-state solution. This is something where we are focusing on the humanitarian appeal. It is important that we see the reopening of the Rafah crossing to allow the movement of people. Much more needs to be done to allow greater levels of humanitarian aid into the strip.
On your second question, further education and the economy and the importance of vocational education, I am glad to report that the Minister for Further and Higher Education has met with the vice-chancellor of each Welsh university and has had very constructive and positive discussions. North Wales's tertiary institutions are playing a pivotal role in developing the skilled workforce that is needed, particularly in relation to the future Awel y Môr offshore windfarm. Welsh Government held a skills summit on 22 January at the fantastic facilities that Coleg Menai have in Llangefni, where the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership and Minister for Further and Higher Education engaged. Also, of course, you've seen the strategic direction for vocational education and training in the written statement back in June from the Minister for Further and Higher Education.
I'd like to request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on the significant waiting list backlogs for gall bladder, dermatology, hernia and endoscopy treatments. I raised this very question just last week with the First Minister. I would like a clarification, because she stated that there was a 97 per cent reduction in dermatology patients waiting for treatment. That was in her response to me last week. Now, that is not the experience my constituents are receiving. It is actually being reported that 11,600 cumulative healthcare cases have not been recorded as even waiting for planned treatment between April and August last year. In July 2025, over 6,854 people were waiting for a diagnostic endoscopy, an increase from 4,985 the previous year. In 2024, the in-patient urgent gall bladder surgery waiting time was 32 weeks. I had a constituent present to me on Friday who had had a burst gall bladder, having waited over 100 weeks. Can you confirm that there has definitely been a 97 per cent drop in dermatology patients—in other words, that they've had the treatment? Thank you. I'm just very doubtful that that's the case.
Janet Finch-Saunders, you are clear—not only have you heard from the First Minister in terms of that dramatic decrease in waiting times, but also you've seen it on the statistical record and, indeed, of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care made that statement and enabled all Members, including you, to question the progress that's being made in terms of tackling and bringing down waiting times. Clearly, in terms of constituents and issues that have been raised like that, you would go, and I am sure you have gone, to Betsi Cadwaladr on their behalf, because they are responsible. But, I do urge you to look at the statement that was made by the Cabinet Secretary last week.
I would like a statement, please, from the Government reacting to the latest developments in the 1950s women case. Last week, the UK Government announced that women born in the 1950s would not receive compensation, even though they were discriminated against when their pension age was changed. The Government in Westminster has accepted that maladministration occurred, but it refuses to remedy it. This is internally inconsistent, it is irrational, it is an injustice. This was not simply a case of poor communication; it was discrimination in breach of international law. These women are rightly enraged, but there is still a route open to justice. Mediation is now no longer optional; it is the correct course to take. For the sake of those women so badly let down by the Westminster system, not to mention all those women who have died without having the money that they are owed, will this Government please make a statement demanding that these women's voices be heard?
Thank you very much, Delyth Jewell. I was very pleased to meet with my constituents, including Kay Clarke, after your question to the Counsel General. This was the day before this announcement was made. Of course, decisions, as we are completely aware, about the state pension, including compensation relating to communication failures, rest entirely with the UK Government. I want to acknowledge the distress many women have experienced in relation to this issue, and although decisions on pensions lie in Westminster, I encourage any woman who is unsure about her entitlement or financial position to seek support, particularly in terms of our responsibilities, from the advice services we fund. I want to specifically look at that in relation to the cohort of these women affected. So, I just wanted to say today that we continue, as the Welsh Government, to be in direct contact with the UK Government on this matter, using every avenue available to press the UK Government for more meaningful engagement, transparency and fairness for women in Wales affected by the state pension age changes.
During his oral statement last Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care stated that, in some health board areas, in Swansea and in Powys, no-one is waiting more than two years for treatment or more than a year for an out-patient appointment. The Cabinet Secretary's statement was false, and I believe he misled the Senedd. This is not the first time that he has made this claim without providing the broader context or acknowledging that Powys does not have a district general hospital of its own. The Cabinet Secretary knows full well that the latest figures show that there are hundreds of people waiting for appointments and treatment. It is deeply frustrating for the hundreds of people who are waiting for treatment, often in pain, to be referred to as 'no-one', and to hear such misleading information being presented by the health Secretary. I would ask the Trefnydd, with the Llywydd's agreement, to ask the health Secretary to make a statement to the Senedd to provide an apology and to clarify the correct position.
Russell George, I am concerned about your language today in terms of what you're alleging. A statement was made last week by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and, of course, statistically, this is formally and officially on record. Your point has been made. But I am concerned about this, and, obviously, I ask you to consider the points that you've made, and also to look at that statement that was made last week and to look at the statistical records in terms of the waiting times statistics.
But, of course, we want to ensure that all patients in Wales are aware of the great progress that has been made in terms of the reduction in waiting times, because it means that they are getting treatment. Over all the weekends, the work that's being done by our staff as a result of the extra money that the Cabinet Secretary spoke about last week is making a difference to people's lives in terms of that investment and the work that's being done by our health professionals, day in, day out, to support our patients and constituents.
Just to clarify, I listened to the Member's comments and I heard him say it was his belief and opinion at that point in time. That's why I didn't intervene in the question. Jenny Rathbone.
On a lighter note, I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for attending the wonderful Armenian exhibition in the Oriel, which is on until the end of March, where the artefacts have been rescued, many of them from Turkey, following the genocide in 1915, and I was delighted to meet a refugee from Nagorno-Karabakh who was a victim of the ethnic cleansing that took place two or three years ago.
I wondered if I could ask for two statements. One, continuous assessment is an important tool to measure the quality of teaching and learning, but, speaking to front-line secondary school teachers and their senior leadership team, I am concerned to hear that recorded assessments of competency in Welsh and English is significantly impacting teachers' and students' mental health. So, can I request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education on any plans to revise the non-examined assessments to make them less onerous?
Secondly, as cheaper energy is one of the most important interventions to make Welsh businesses competitive with European manufacturers—
—can I have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning on the Welsh Government's plans to create a heat network for south Wales?
Can I also agree that it was an excellent Armenian exhibition today, encouraging unity and cohesion? I do encourage everyone to go and visit the exhibition.
Just in terms of your question regarding assessments and the fact that non-examination assessments now—. Questions, I understand, have been raised about the workload—the logistical and workload issues for teachers and middle leaders—and the Cabinet Secretary for Education is aware of that. These relate to the reformed national 14-16 qualifications. Qualification Wales and WJEC met with headteachers and unions before Christmas to understand the specific changes, and they've committed to updating and engaging with the unions and headteachers as part of the ongoing roll-out of the new national 14-16 qualifications.
I'm aware of the second question, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I appreciate the time that has been, and I would hope that the Member could come back with that question for me next week, please.
I'd like to call for a statement, please, from the Deputy First Minister on urban cleanliness in Wales. We often hear the Welsh Government pat themselves on the back for their great environmental record and Wales's high recycling rate, but you certainly wouldn't know that if you were dropped into certain urban areas of Wales, such as parts of Rhyl in my constituency, where standards of cleanliness have declined dramatically in recent years. I've noticed our streets getting filthier and filthier, and the evidence backs this up. Litter levels in Wales have reached a crisis point, with the campaign group Keep Wales Tidy, on publishing their annual report last year, finding the worst results for street cleanliness in the 17 years since the charity began, with a 286 per cent increase in the number of the most dirty streets. Cardiff was highlighted as one of the worst areas, and I've seen the situation deteriorate over the years that I've travelled up and down here as a Senedd Member, and I've seen it deteriorate up in Denbighshire too. There's even an X account, or Twitter in old money, called 'Dirty Wales', which posts pictures of filthy streets to shame authorities into cleaning them up. And he set up this account having the embarrassing experience of welcoming foreign relatives to Wales who were shocked at the litter and grime.
So, can we hear from the Deputy First Minister on how he's co-ordinating with local authorities to launch a crackdown on the rise of litter and grime, which is ravaging our urban communities—
I'm sure you will agree with me that we should be proud of the fact that Wales is the second most successful recycling nation in the world. We should be proud of that, and I hope you are proud too. We've got a comprehensive programme of support to support local authorities to make improvements to their Wales recycling performance. You go beyond that in terms of your points today, but I just think it's important to show that more than half—55 per cent—of councils have met or gone above the 70 per cent target in the first year, with 90 per cent having improved their recycling performance. And, of course, there's a well-established process in terms of reaching that statutory target. And I think what's important, for you and for your communities, is the best-practice guidance from the Welsh Government, in terms of capital funding for infrastructure, technical support from expert advisers, and extensive case studies of good practice. You've gone beyond the impact of recycling, I know and I appreciate, but I think it's important that the joint working between local authorities and partnership working with the Welsh Government is acknowledged. And indeed, yes, as I started, in terms of the response to your question, we are the second most successful in terms of—. Why don't you praise that? And, of course, we will be holding to account those who have not yet reached their recycling potential.
I ask Members to keep to their time because, without doing so, others don't get a chance to speak. There were 17 Members who wished to speak in this section. We have already used that time. There are four Members who still haven't been called. If Members go beyond their time, they're simply taking the opportunity away from others to actually speak. Diolch, Trefnydd.
Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. As we enter the final months of this Senedd term, I want to be clear about one thing: we promised to deliver more homes, and we are delivering. A good, secure home underpins everything else in people's lives—their health, their well-being and their chances. That is why housing has been a central priority for this Welsh Labour Government. And we have delivered in some of the toughest conditions the housing sector has faced in a generation—through the pandemic, disrupted supply chains, rising costs, high interest rates and wider economic shocks not of our making. Despite all of that, housing delivery in Wales has remained resilient because this Government has stepped in, backed builders, unlocked sites and kept the system moving.
Back in November, I reflected on the latest affordable housing statistics, which reported that this Government is on track to deliver an additional 20,000 homes for rent in the social sector by November. This also showed a 12 per cent increase in delivery in 2024-25 on the year before, and the highest total since records began in 2007. That means this Government has delivered the highest sustained level of affordable housing in decades and, crucially, we have built a pipeline that will carry that momentum into the future. That progress has not happened by accident. It's a result of an active Government backing house builders, large and small, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, unlocking stalled sites, investing in skills and innovation, and maintaining confidence in the market.
And this isn't just about social housing. Official statistics also show that, since 2021, nearly 18,000 private sector homes have been completed in Wales in the first four years of this Government's term, despite the negative impact of the Liz Truss mini-budget, Brexit, the aftermath of the pandemic, and rising material and labour costs.
We are determined to continue to work with developers to support people buying their own home. Help to Buy—Wales has more than 70 developers signed up and benefiting from new customers. It has helped almost 15,000 people to purchase a new home over its lifespan, and, since April 2022, 85 per cent of purchasers have been first-time buyers.
We have simplified and strengthened support for small and medium-sized enterprise builders through the Wales residential property fund, helping unblock stalled sites and to bring forward both speculative and non-speculative developments. Over the past decade, SME support has helped deliver over 1,000 homes and supported more than 80 Welsh house building firms.
And we're not slowing down. I'm working closely with local authority leads and their registered social landlord counterparts to drive delivery and to provide first-hand leadership and commitment to supporting them on addressing housing need, and working collectively to respond to the recommendations of the affordable housing taskforce. That includes availability of land. Our own Place Division currently has 26 sites, covering over 1,300 acres, with potential to deliver around 7,000 new homes.
We've already signed a contract with Barratt Redrow to deliver the UK's largest net-zero carbon housing development, and one of the biggest in Europe. The Cosmeston farm site will see the delivery of 576 new homes that will achieve net-zero carbon through innovative design and technologies. Fifty per cent of the homes will be affordable, with 219 set to be available for social rent. The development will also include a new primary school, open space and an active travel route, creating a comprehensive, sustainable community.
I'm pleased to announce that an additional £11 million in repayable finance has been made available for the land for housing loan scheme this financial year, which, with recycled loan funding, will provide total funding of £23 million this financial year. Its aim is to support the delivery of up to 850 additional homes by securing land sites for housing development and helping to ensure that opportunities are not lost to the registered social landlord sector. A total of £90 million in recyclable loan funding has already been invested into the scheme since its inception to secure land towards the delivery of up to 7,400 homes. I have also reopened our RSL low-cost loan scheme, putting £36 million towards a scheme that's already on track to deliver over 270 new affordable homes and improvements to over 4,000 existing properties.
Alongside long-term delivery, we've continued to act decisively where housing need is most acute. In October, we announced an additional £55 million for the transitional accommodation capital programme, increasing this year's allocation to £155 million. I'm pleased to announce today that we have allocated an indicative £50 million for 2026-27. TACP is enabling good-quality homes to be delivered at pace through acquisitions, conversions, refurbishments of void properties, and has already supported thousands of households while creating assets that remain within the social housing system for the long term.
Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement today. You have mentioned that official statistics show nearly 18,000 private sector homes have been built in Wales since 2021, during the first four years of this Government's term. While that figure may sound positive, it does not tell the full story, especially when considering the negative impacts of policies such as the UK Labour Government's high-tax, anti-business agenda, which has added further challenges to the housing sector.
The reality is that, overall, housing completions in Wales have been falling. Analysis from Savills shows that new-home completions are now at their lowest annual level since March 2015, with energy performance certificate data pointing to a 10 per cent year-on-year decline. This shows that the recent trend is moving in the wrong direction, despite the headline numbers being quoted today. At the same time, new residential construction projects have dropped sharply. According to StatsWales, project starts are now running below completions, which is a clear warning sign for future supply. As a result, property starts are close to their lowest levels on record on an annual basis. Planning consents remain extremely low, and, although there was a small increase in 2024, this has not been enough to change the overall picture.
The Home Builders Federation has warned that without a meaningful rise in consents housing completions are unlikely to grow significantly in the near term. Industry research reinforces this concern, showing that overall housing supply remains well below the level needed to meet future housing demand. Planning consents, in particular, are still far below their historic peak, raising serious questions about the long-term pipeline of new homes. With the overall housing supply falling and below long-term requirements, how does this Government reconcile its claim of delivery with the reality of a broader construction downturn that risks undermining market housing supply?
You have said in your statement that you have reopened the RSL low-cost loan scheme, putting funding towards improvements to 4,000 existing properties. But, Cabinet Secretary, it is unclear what measurable outcomes have been produced. There is a need for clearer evidence on the average reduction in household energy bills, whether there are verified reductions in carbon emissions, and how these results help tenants living in those properties. It is not good enough to say 'improvements', because, as we have seen with retrofitting cavity wall insulation and other types of insulation, it can reduce ventilation in homes, increase humidity and result in black mould infestation. With this in mind, what action is the Welsh Government taking to ensure that property improvements are value for money and achieve significant and noticeable improvements in the quality of homes?
Okay, it's the last question. If the stated focus on delivery has not substantially reduced homelessness or improved affordability, what actions will this Government take to ensure that housing supply meets not only numerical targets, but also addresses lived housing need and affordability pressures? Thank you.
Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Thank you, Joel. You perhaps missed the fact that I'd said that we were hitting our target of 20,000 affordable social homes to rent in November this year. That is a remarkable achievement by all involved. I think we should pay tribute to everybody, from local authorities to house builders, who've all come together to make this happen. It is no mean feat, and it is a huge achievement. But that achievement has been helped by—and I have been told by the sector—years of direction, of funding that has followed through, and real commitment by this Government and previous Governments to make sure that we have a really strong pipeline for those homes to be built in the social sector.
In terms of house building support, there have been nearly 18,000 private sector homes completed across Wales since 2021. We work very closely with house builders, and we know that they play a vital role both through our Help to Buy—Wales scheme and building those private accommodations as well. I know that the house building sector has faced significant challenges in recent years, but I recently met SMEs and major house builders and industry representatives, including the Home Builders Federation and the Federation of Master Builders, just to discuss what actions could be undertaken to support house building in Wales. We've got a number of schemes that are administered by the Development Bank of Wales on our behalf, and they support homebuyers and developers, and a range of support is available for house builders, including schemes specifically for the SME sector.
As I said, we've got our scheme, which is Help to Buy. That's a scheme that we have continued with in Wales. The Tory UK Government stopped that in England. We have in Wales more than 70 developers signed up, and they are benefiting from new customers.
With the registered social landlord loan scheme, just over £79 million of loan funding was invested in 2023-24, and that delivered approximately 220 additional low-carbon homes for rent in the social sector, and brought 22 voids back into use in this term of Government, as well as accelerating the delivery of seven new-build sites, delivering a minimum of 86 social rent homes in the next term of Government. So, our RSL development loan, the 2023 programme was oversubscribed, so officials opened the scheme for expressions of interest, and as a result, an additional £90 million of loan funding was issued in March 2025. That's going to help the housing sector with the escalating costs of debt and supporting the delivery of 277 affordable homes. One hundred and nineteen of those will be delivered this Senedd term, and there will be improvement works to 4,397 existing homes.
You mentioned skills, and I come from a long line of people who work in the construction sector. My dad was a plasterer and tiler, my uncle was a roofer, my grandfather was a painter and decorator, and another uncle was a bricklayer. So, I feel I'm a disappointment to them that I am not in that sector myself, but I do learn from them. [Laughter.] I very much appreciate the importance of the skills sector, and I work very closely with my Cabinet colleagues, the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership and the Minister for Further and Higher Education, just to ensure that the built environment sector skills are at the heart of our green skills policy. I know that the Minister for skills has confirmed conversations around reinstating the level 2 construction and built environment-style apprenticeships. Medr are currently undertaking a review of all apprenticeship frameworks, and the built environment and construction sector is the first tranche of that review. So, I very much appreciate the points you made on that.
Housing is a part of my past as well, as it happens. My father, when he retired, was the head of Dwyfor District Council, which was looking after the council houses at the time, and my grandfather was one of the people who built the houses in Liverpool. So, I think that we all have similar stories about connections with the housing sector.
Plaid Cymru does welcome this new investment that you’re announcing today, particularly the aspects that increase the supply of social housing in Wales. It is a positive step that reflects the consistent calls from these benches for a focus on increasing the supply of social housing. But it is important to reiterate the astonishing truth that one in every 14 households in Wales is waiting for a social home, and that one in every 215 households is trapped in temporary accommodation. So, in that context, it does feel a bit strange to see an atmosphere of celebration when the housing crisis is a lived reality for so many people every day.
We do have a housing crisis in Wales and we do need clear leadership, and only last week Plaid Cymru did bring forward a debate drawing attention to the great need to increase the social housing stock. The commitment of the Government to build 20,000 low-carbon social homes for rent by the end of the term is a vital step to tackle homelessness and to mitigate the pressure on housing services, but it is important to note that the Government includes empty social homes in those figures, and so those 20,000, they are not all additional homes, because a significant proportion of those 20,000 empty homes are those that are being renewed—that is, they were already in the stock, but they're being renewed. I'm just making the point; I'm just drawing attention to that.
It's not clear from your statement where exactly this investment that's being announced today is coming from. That would be useful information for us, I think, and although, of course, we do welcome every announcement of extra funding, long-term financial sustainability is needed for the sector for the future, and that's the assurance, of course, that the establishment of Unnos, Plaid Cymru's policy, would give. That could provide the long-term assurance that's needed.
During our debate last week, we talked about the affordable homes taskforce report, which identifies clearly the structural barriers holding the housing sector back, and, of course, the report does note practical actions that could be taken to increase that supply. And I want to ask you again today for some transparency about where we are exactly with the recommendations of that taskforce. Can we have some information about which recommendations have been delivered, and where work difficulties remain, so that we can better understand what the barriers are and what needs to be done in the long term?
Diolch, Siân, and thank you for those questions. In terms of the social housing waiting list, I think it's just really important to recognise that waiting lists are not a measure of housing needs; they're a measure of who would like to and who has applied to live in social housing. Anyone can apply for social housing in multiple areas, and therefore they include people who live in secure housing but wish to move into social housing. So, when the target of 20,000 was set, it was set to a figure that exceeded the affordable housing need projections at that time—just to make that clear. Obviously, housing needs would have changed since then, but this level of delivery, I think, should be welcomed in tackling the ongoing needs.
In terms of the void properties that you gave, in terms of the example for use through TACP, we have been very clear from the outset about the important role that acquisitions and existing properties play in delivering housing for those in need. The independent affordable housing taskforce reaffirmed this position, and that without investing in these properties to bring them back into use, they could have been sold, they could have been lost from the social housing sector completely. Therefore, they recommended that where significant investment had been made in the properties, they should be counted towards the target, and it was a recommendation that I accepted. The properties didn't have people safely housed, they now do, and this has been done at pace and supported by more than £400 million in TACP funding over the last three years. So, since the commencement of TACP in 2022-23, 936 void properties had been brought back into use via the programme as at March 2025, and we're forecasting a further 136 by the end of March 2026. So, I think it's always good to remind ourselves that these are homes that have been brought back into use to make sure that they're good-quality homes for people.
In terms of Unnos, I know that the affordable housing work programme, which was formerly Unnos, has been an important enabler for increasing the scale and pace of the delivery of affordable and social housing, and that work includes the delivery of the 'Tai ar y Cyd' pattern book, and that was in collaboration with 24 RSLs; the 'Rural Housing Action Guide for Wales', which was published just before Christmas; the 'Handbook on Empty Properties in Wales', which was published before Christmas; and we've also had options appraisals completed on the training programme to equip learners with the necessary knowledge to undertake the role of a social housing development officer. So, we have taken that work forward.
And just in terms of the affordable housing taskforce recommendations, I'm very happy, perhaps, to provide a written statement after the next meeting of the implementation group, which is later in February, so I'll do that before the end of the term. The last meeting that I chaired of the taskforce recommendation implementation group—it's not a snappy title; if anyone comes up with a better title, I'd be keen to hear—I chaired that back on 8 December and we are really taking a team Wales approach to this, taking collective ownership of the recommendations and delivery and monitoring. I've asked that each recommendation is taken by those who have the area of expertise, because we've got lots of good people around that table and I believe in their commitment, they all want to deliver this, but I think it's important that we use their expertise to take those forward. So, we are making good progress, particularly on things like identifying land, resourcing the planning system and tracking schemes and skills support.
Only two spokespeople have had a chance to speak and we have taken the full 30 minutes allocated to this statement. I intend to call all others, but I ask you to keep to your time limits as well, please. You're all experienced politicians, you all can do it, so let's make sure we can do it. John Griffiths.
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I very much welcome your statement today, Cabinet Secretary. You will be aware that, for the Local Government and Housing Committee, the delivery of affordable homes is an absolute priority. We did some work on social housing supply just over a year ago, and we're currently doing follow-up work, and we continue to hear concerns about the numbers of people in temporary accommodation—I think there are some 11,000 people and almost 3,000 children. So, this highlights the need for even greater progress, although I very much join you in paying tribute to the housing sector in working towards that 20,000 affordable social homes for rent target.
You've accepted, Cabinet Secretary, the need to move on to perhaps some 20 per cent of our housing stock in Wales being made up of affordable social housing, and I wonder over what time period you might see that being achieved, and also whether you would accept that a national development corporation for Wales could play a very important part in helping deliver that and aligning our work in terms of housing and regeneration when it comes to leading on the delivery of large-scale strategic sites. Diolch yn fawr.
Diolch John, and diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Thank you, first of all, John, for all your work and all the work of every member of the committee. I think you've taken such a strong interest in this. I really welcome all the work that you have done over this Senedd term and will continue to do right up until the end of this Senedd term. I know that a range of work is under way to deliver the recommendations that we have accepted. I really appreciate you welcoming the fact that we have the most ambitious housing target in our nation's history. We've backed that with over £2 billion over this Senedd term, and that included £466 million in 2025-26 alone. We recognise that there's a clear need for things like single-person households, and that's evident from our local authorities' local housing market assessments. But we are looking to focus our efforts on aligning our delivery, through our social housing prospectus, with evidence of need. So, as I say, work is under way on the recommendations that we have accepted from the committee.
When the Welsh Government published its five-year programme for government to April 2026, it contained the explicit commitment to build 20,000 new low-carbon social homes for rent. You state today that you are on track to deliver an additional 20,000 homes for rent in the social sector by November—six months late—but you failed to say that you've added homes that are not new builds and not for social rent, including intermediate rent homes and shared ownership schemes. Why do you fail to make this clear, or to reference the official data showing that the Welsh Government cut new social housing in Wales by over 70 per cent in the first three Assembly, now Senedd, terms from 1999, which included a Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition Government; that the 2012 UK housing review said that, by 2010, the Welsh Government had by far the lowest proportional level of housing expenditure of any of the four UK countries; that it took the UK Conservative Government from 2010 just six years to deliver twice as many council houses in England—
[Inaudible.]—with the previous Labour Government, while Wales lagged behind; and, finally, that, even last year, Wales was the only UK nation to see fewer new home registrations than in 2012?
Thank you, Mark. I think we all know the damage that the Conservative policy of right to buy caused in this country, taking out so many council housing, not just in Wales, but across the UK. In terms of delivering on our target, let's be clear: this is a huge achievement. We will achieve 20,000 homes for rent in the social sector by November this year. That's despite the headwinds that we've had through inflation. We've had a disastrous Liz Truss budget, we've had Brexit, we've had all those pressures on skills as well—all those things that were caused by a Tory UK Government, let's not forget.
We are on schedule to deliver 93 per cent of the target by the end of this Senedd term. Hundreds more are under way. We are on track, with the official statistics showing that we can get there. By the end of this year, we'll exceed that target. We have a really strong pipeline, and that's really important as well. That's the trust the sector has put in us, the confidence that we have given to the sector, through the record levels of investment, through constant discussions and policy guidance—that we want to deliver on this, and we want to go further and faster as well. And we again pay tribute to the sector for all they have done on this.
You began your statement by saying that good housing underpins people's health, well-being and chances, and I'd absolutely agree. For disabled people, that's especially true. A constituent of mine uses a powered wheelchair and has recently had a house purchased and adapted for her by the local authority. But she's unable to move into the property because the adaptations don't provide sufficient turning space for her powered wheelchair. She was told this was because the designs were based on specifications for manual wheelchairs, which have a smaller turning radius than power wheelchairs.
Under the minimum standards for homes funded through the transitional accommodation capital programme, accommodation must be accessible for the specific needs of those living there. Could you confirm how the Welsh Government ensures these requirements are applied consistently across Wales? What oversight exists to ensure that contractors and housing associations undertaking adaptations follow the guidance and design homes that genuinely meet the needs of all disabled residents?
Diolch, Sioned. Thank you for that. We have increased investment in home adaptations so that local authorities can respond faster and support those with complex and urgent needs. Local authorities continue to receive an additional £3 million in annual funding through the housing with care fund to alleviate some of the pressures we know are on the disabled facilities grant. If you could write to me further on that particular case, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
Thank you for your statement. As you say, Cabinet Secretary, achieving 20,000 additional homes for rent in the social sector is something that absolutely should be celebrated. However, I am concerned to see the number of households that are in temporary accommodation right across Wales. For a family to be housed in temporary accommodation, particularly in bed and breakfast, I think is completely inappropriate. Not to be able to prepare and cook meals, not to be able to offer a quiet environment for a child to undertake schoolwork, and to place people in accommodation where standards are not where we ourselves would want to live is unacceptable. It's crucial that this area of housing need improves. Could you update and clarify what work you are doing with local authorities to ensure the number of households in temporary accommodation reduces as a matter of urgency? Diolch.
Thank you for that question. Every time I see the numbers for temporary accommodation, I remember that they're people—they're not numbers. It's children on that list as well. It really does sit with me—I do think about that every time I see those numbers. It's really hard, because you see the statistics, and sometimes we forget that it's not a static number. We are seeing local authorities moving between 650 and 800 people out of temporary accommodation each month into permanent homes, and that's really positive. But there are still too many people in temporary accommodation.
We support local authorities with significant investments in homelessness prevention and housing support, to try and reduce the flow of people needing temporary accommodation. We're also supporting local authorities with move-on from temporary accommodation with the £155 million we're investing in TACP this year. But we are also reducing our reliance on less suitable forms of temporary accommodation, such as hotels and B&Bs. The use of those fell by 6 per cent across Wales when comparing October 2024 with October 2025. The number of dependent children in temporary accommodation has been decreasing over recent months. The latest data shows a 13 per cent reduction in the same period, from October 2024 to October 2025. Again, I still feel that there are too many in that, but we are working hard with local authorities to reduce that number.
I spoke to some developers yesterday, Cabinet Secretary. They told me that it's not just a matter of building houses—there are so many other complicated issues, one being access to utilities and services. I want to know what work you're doing with the Cabinet Secretary for health to ensure that health boards and GP surgeries are told about new houses being built. Because Cardiff and Vale board are already under an incredible amount of stress. They report to me that part of that issue is that the funding formula currently in place is based on old data. Some of the data for the additional needs index go back to the 2001 census or self-reports from the 1998 general household survey. I'm sure you agree that GPs need to be kept in the loop about developments within the community so they can plan as much as possible. New houses are crucial and are welcomed; what we need to avoid is a situation where a person or a family moves in and they don't have access to the services they need. Diolch yn fawr.
Absolutely, Rhys. It's a really important point. With my Cabinet colleague Rebecca Evans, who has responsibility for planning, we do discuss these issues regularly. The example I gave in the statement earlier was Cosmeston Farm and the 576 new homes. That will include a new primary school, open space, active travel, and that will create a comprehensive and sustainable community. That's what we want to see. We want those communities to be brought together, to make sure they have the facilities that they need. We know that communities surrounding that and the pressures on them will be very much in other people's minds. Linking those with primary schools, those open spaces, to create a sustainable community is really important, and that's a good example that's happening in your region as well.
Item 4 on the agenda today is the Tax Collection and Management (Visitor Levy Costs) (Wales) Regulations 2026. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5, approves that the draft The Tax Collection and Management (Visitor Levy Costs) (Wales) Regulations 2026 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 16 December 2025.
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to introduce these draft regulations, which are a part of implementing the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in September.
The regulations support the effective administration of the visitor levy by the Welsh Revenue Authority, while ensuring that principal councils retain 90 per cent of the revenues they raise. To do that, the regulations place a cap on the amount the WRA can deduct from the visitor levy revenues to cover its own operating costs. This is a deliberate policy choice to ensure fairness and clarity for principal councils seeking to introduce a visitor levy and delivers on commitments made during scrutiny of the Bill and in a subsequent letter to council leaders issued earlier this year. By capping the WRA's cost recovery, we remove a potential barrier to adoption because councils will not face upfront costs for implementation and only ongoing administrative costs will be recovered from revenues.
As ever, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for the careful consideration it has given to these regulations. The committee's report identified one technical reporting point, that the term 'visitor levy' has been used on several occasions but has not been defined. I've subsequently replied to the committee setting out the Government's view that the use of the term 'visitor levy' can only be given the meaning already provided in the 2025 Act, making it the only relevant definition.
The regulations are a practical enabling step in delivering a policy already endorsed by the Senedd. I hope Members will support them this afternoon.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations on 19 January and the Welsh Government's response the following week. The committee's report contains one technical reporting point and two merits scrutiny reporting points.
The technical reporting point highlights that the term 'visitor levy' has been used on several occasions but has not been defined. The committee's report asks the Welsh Government to clarify why no definition of 'visitor levy' appears in the regulations. As the Minister just said, the Welsh Government states that it does not agree with the reporting point. It argues that the reference to 'visitor levy' in the regulations could only mean a visitor levy introduced under Part 3 of the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025 and that it is obvious from the context what the term is referring to.
The first of the committee's merits scrutiny points highlights that the Welsh Revenue Authority must pay the visitor levy into the Welsh consolidated fund. The second notes an explanation from the Government that the instrument has been prepared outside the new software for Welsh statutory instruments, and therefore may require minor formatting improvement during the registration process.
The Cabinet Secretary will be well aware of the Welsh Conservatives' opposition to the principle of a tourism tax here in Wales, and these regulations take a further step towards making that tax a reality for businesses and visitors here in Wales.
We know Wales relies heavily on tourism, a multibillion-pound industry supporting families, small businesses, hospitality workers and supporting our communities through the supply chain. A visitor levy sends the wrong message at the wrong time, that coming here costs more, that visitors are a burden to be taxed, rather than a benefit to our economy and to our communities to be welcomed. And I know that tourism is certainly not an abstract concept. It's our local hotels staying open through the winter, it's cafes keeping staff employed, attractions investing in improvements and communities remaining vibrant. So, even a small additional charge can influence where people choose to go, particularly for families, for coach tours and budget travellers. And once that footfall is lost, it can be extremely difficult to recover.
If the goal, of course, is to support infrastructure, manage the pressures that can arise in our communities and improve visitor experiences, then we should be working collaboratively with the tourism sector, not taxing it further. The better use of existing funding, targeted investment and smarter planning will achieve far more than a levy that risks undermining confidence in the sector. We should be encouraging people to visit, to stay longer and to return, but instead today we hear another reason for them to go elsewhere. For those reasons, we will not be supporting the regulations as we're firmly against the introduction of a visitor levy in Wales. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, of course, it's Mr Rowlands's job to oppose the policy. We've heard a well-rehearsed set of arguments that were comprehensively defeated by the Senedd in vote after vote during the passage of the Bill. His job is to oppose, my job is to ensure that the decisions of the Senedd in passing the visitor levy Bill are put into practice. That's what these regulations do, and that's why I'm asking Members to support them this afternoon.
The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.
5. The Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Regulation and Inspection of Social Care) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026
Item 5 is the Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Regulation and Inspection of Social Care) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026. I call on the Minister for Children and Social care to move the motion—Dawn Bowden.
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5, approves that the draft The Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Regulation and Inspection of Social Care) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 13 January 2026.
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The regulations before you today are made under the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 and affect the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016. They give effect to the requirements of both UK free trade agreements with Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland, the EEA free trade agreement, and Switzerland, and will approve the accessibility of the legislation for both the regulator and relevant applicants.
Section 3 of the 2022 Act gives the appropriate national authority the power to make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international recognition agreement to which the UK is a party. In 2023, the UK-wide regulations were introduced requiring all regulators, including those responsible for professional standards in Wales, to meet obligations under the EEA free trade agreement regarding recognition of professional qualifications. At the same time, Wales made its own Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Wales) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2023, which removed Welsh devolved professions, including social care, from the scope of the UK regulations and replaced them with Wales-specific provisions.
However, these Welsh regulations did not amend the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, because doing so would require changes to primary legislation. The amendments in these draft regulations update parts of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act to ensure that the relevant primary legislation is up to date and is compliant with the requirements of both the EEA FTA and the Swiss agreement. They remove social care workers from the scope of the Wales 2023 regulations and will therefore improve the accessibility of the legislation for both the regulator and relevant applications. I recommend these amendments to the Siambr.
The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations on 26 January and the Welsh Government's response yesterday. The committee's report contains two technical reporting points. The first notes that the regulations insert various defined terms into the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, including one reference to the term 'supervised practice'. However, 'supervised practice' is not defined in the 2016 Act, nor in the regulations. The committee asked the Welsh Government to explain why.
In its response, the Welsh Government argues that the term 'supervised practice' is already well understood in professional qualification recognition systems. The response also states that some flexibility is required in the interpretation of the term, and that over-prescription in primary legislation could constrain Social Care Wales’s ability to ensure that supervision arrangements are proportionate. The committee has also noted the Welsh Government’s response. However, I ask the Minister, in her response to this debate, to confirm that she's completely satisfied that the drafting of the regulations is sufficiently clear for the term 'supervised practice' to be interpreted as intended.
The second reporting point highlighted that the regulations require the registrar to give notice of a decision about the registration or renewal of a state applicant within four months of the application being submitted. The amendment states that where the registrar fails to give notice of a decision within that time period, that failure is to be treated as a decision of the registrar. However, it is not clear from the regulations whether a registrar’s failure to respond would be treated as a decision to approve or reject the application.
The Welsh Government’s response sets out that the intended effect of the provisions is not to provide that the application is automatically approved or rejected. Rather, the intention is to enable the applicant to access the existing appeals framework if the registrar has not complied with the statutory time limit. Diolch.
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. In responding, I can confirm that the Welsh Government is satisfied that the regulations are sufficiently clear in the definition of the term 'supervision', and the aim of these amendments is simply to ensure that all the relevant legislation is up to date and internally compliant with the necessary requirements arising from the EEA FTA and the Swiss agreement on the recognition of professional qualifications. This will improve the accessibility of legislation for both the regulator and the relevant applications, and I urge Members to support the regulations.
That brings us to our next item. In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under items 6 and 7, the public health (minimum price for alcohol) regulations 2026, will be grouped for debate, but with votes taken separately. I've heard no objections.
6. & 7. The Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Act 2018 (Continuation) Regulations 2026 and The Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Minimum Unit Price) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5, approves that the draft The Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Act 2018 (Continuation) Regulations 2026 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 16 December 2025.
Motion NDM9130 Jane Hutt
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5, approves that the draft The Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Minimum Unit Price) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 16 December 2025.
Thank you very much. The regulations before the Senedd today build on and look to continue the success of minimum unit pricing policy in Wales. Minimum unit pricing was introduced with a clear purpose: to reduce the health risks associated with excessive alcohol consumption. Its aim was, and continues to be, to tackle alcohol-related harm, including hospital admissions and alcohol-specific deaths, by reducing consumption among hazardous and harmful drinkers.
This policy is part of a broader Welsh Government commitment to improving health outcomes and tackling inequality. Alongside MUP, we continue to invest over £67 million annually in substance misuse services, and these services provide vital support, including rehabilitation and education, for those affected by alcohol and drug misuse.
Over the past five years, we have carefully monitored the impact of MUP. Independent valuations, the operation and effect report and extensive stakeholder engagement, including a public consultation and evidence gathered by the Senedd's Health and Social Care Committee, have all informed our future approach. I would really like to thank the committee for its work and its recommendations, which included the recommendation that the Welsh Government should bring forward regulations to continue MUP beyond March 2026 and seek to increase the minimum unit price for alcohol.
The evidence is clear: MUP has contributed positively to its intended objectives, and its operation has been broadly successful. In addition, we commissioned updated modelling from the Sheffield Addictions Research Group. Their analysis assessed the impact of continuing MUP and explored options for adjusting the price. The findings support an increase to 65p per unit, which would maintain the policy's effectiveness in real terms, and align Wales with Scotland. We recognise that certain groups, such as dependent drinkers on low incomes, may be vulnerable to changes in pricing, and that is why we will continue to provide support through our substance misuse services and ensure clear public health messaging accompanies any changes.
It is important to acknowledge the context in which MUP has operated. Its introduction coincided with the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis, factors that have influenced attitudes and consumption patterns. Despite these challenges, the evidence shows that MUP has helped reduce the availability of high-strength, low-cost alcohol products, a positive step towards encouraging responsible drinking.
The original Act includes a sunset clause, meaning the current provisions would expire on 1 March 2026, unless new legislation is introduced. So, today I am presenting regulations to ensure MUP continues beyond that date, and, secondly, to increase the minimum price to 65p per unit. These measures will help us build on the progress made and further protect the health and well-being of people in Wales.
So, in summary, these two proposals are not just policy decisions; they are public health interventions that save lives, they reduce harm and support healthier communities. Minimum pricing for alcohol is not designed to work in isolation, and we will continue to support our broad work in the substance misuse area, targeted towards prevention, support and recovery and tackling availability. Diolch.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered both sets of draft regulations on 19 January. The committee's reports each contain the same merits scrutiny reporting points. They highlight that the respective instruments have been prepared outside the new software for Welsh statutory instruments and may therefore require minor formatting improvements during the registration process if they are approved by the Senedd. A Welsh Government response was not required to either report.
I'm responding to this today not as the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, but in my own right, representing our group. Now, whilst the intention behind this policy is well meaning, we do not think the legislation in its current form is wholly compatible with its aims. There just isn't enough conclusive evidence to continue with it, let alone the increase in the minimum price by a third. It is important to note, too, this legislation has a disproportionate impact on those with lower incomes.
Also, there is concern that people with alcohol dependencies will sadly continue to purchase alcohol, just at a higher financial detriment to themselves and probably their families. We talk about the prevention agenda a lot in this Chamber, but we need to see prevention being implemented. The Government's energy would be better focused on addressing the underlying causes of alcohol misuse or alcoholism and improving support for those in recovery, rather than looking to use policies that have detrimental impacts on those most vulnerable. The Welsh Government needs to acknowledge the fact that this legislation is not delivering as intended. Latest data shows alcohol-specific deaths have increased to a new high, with 262 fatalities recorded in Wales in 2023. Alcohol-specific hospital admissions also continue to rise, with over 12,000 admissions involving more than 8,000 individuals. The fact is that you are 2.8 times more likely to be admitted for an alcohol-specific condition if you are from a more deprived area in Wales.
Dirprwy Lywydd, there isn't enough strong evidence that this policy is working as intended, and the Welsh Government would do well to focus their efforts on better evidence-led policies, rather than looking to expand the so-called nanny state and control the price of yet another product in Wales, albeit well meant. We need more time and money invested in prevention, not restriction. For these reasons, the Welsh Conservatives will be voting against proposals to continue and to increase the minimum unit price.
As we consider these regulations today, I believe that it is important to start by recognising that this is a complex issue, and one that raises valid questions about health, equality and impact on communities. Decisions about alcohol pricing are never simple, and they deserve careful consideration based on evidence rather than intuition or ideology. Nevertheless, when we look honestly at the data before us, the scale of the challenge that we face is clear. In 2023, the highest number of people died in Wales as a result of alcohol abuse. At the same time, it is estimated that alcohol-related harms cost the NHS in Wales around £159 million a year.
These facts highlight why we must continue to consider measures that can reduce harm in the long term. Given this context, I welcome the regulations before us today. The proposal to raise the minimum price per unit of alcohol reflects a simple economic reality, namely that over the past five years, inflation has eroded the value of the current policy. Without adjusting the level, the effectiveness of the minimum price gradually diminishes, undermining the very objectives for which it was introduced. Of course, this policy is not one that seeks to solve the problem of alcoholism in Wales, nor does it seek to affect the number of people who do misuse alcohol. And nobody is pretending that it is going to solve all the problems associated with misusing alcohol. Therefore, it does not replace the need for strong support services for people living with alcohol problems, nor for ongoing work to improve public awareness of responsible drinking. Rather, it should be seen as one part of a wider package of preventative measures. That's why I welcome another thing that the Minister said earlier, namely the intention to continue with the steps in progress in order to deal with alcohol misuse.
The evidence from Alcohol Change UK suggests that the minimum price thus far has had the intended effect of targeting cheap and very strong drinks, which are disproportionately associated with serious harms, particularly among vulnerable drinkers who are alcohol dependent.
It is also significant that the evaluations so far have not found strong evidence of the adverse consequences predicted by some, such as driving people towards other substances or to travel long distances to buy alcohol outside of Wales. That hasn't happened.
The Scottish experience also offers some useful context. There, the decision to raise the minimum price is based on modelling that suggests significant reductions in harmful drinking and deaths over time. That cannot be guaranteed, of course, but it is relevant evidence that should be taken seriously.
Finally, it's important to be clear that this measure is not a tax. The Government and this Senedd do not benefit financially from it. Its aim is to influence drinking patterns for the benefit of public health.
Thank you very much. Just to reiterate—and I thank everybody for their comments today—the primary focus of minimum unit pricing is to reduce alcohol-related harm at a population level, and we do recognise the importance of understanding its impact on all groups, including dependent drinkers on low incomes who may be vulnerable to the changes in alcohol pricing. We're also aware of the importance of that clear and effective public health messaging in relation to minimum unit pricing and the broader impact of alcohol consumption on physical and mental health.
We'll also continue to work with our area planning boards to ensure a range of services and support is in place to support people who are experiencing alcohol problems. Alcohol remains the most problematic substance for which people seek assistance. I just wanted to reiterate, as well, that the increase in price proposed of 65p per unit of alcohol would align with Scotland, and these options were underpinned by very thorough modelling and analysis conducted by the Sheffield Addictions Research Group. I hope that people will be able to support this today. I think it's really important that we take this step. Diolch.
The proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.
The next proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. Again, I will defer voting under this item until voting time.
Item 8 is the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Huw Irranca-Davies.
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5, approves that the draft The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 17 December 2025.
Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion. I'm very pleased to be able to bring forward the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026, which makes minor amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2020. These amendments help ensure that the UK emissions trading scheme remains a robust, fair and effective tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while mitigating the risk of carbon leakage for industries in Wales and across the UK. The Order enables operators to choose to have their activity data for 2020, or 2020 and 2021, excluded for the purposes of determining the historical comparison for the 2027 to 2030 allocation period. The primary aim is to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on historical comparisons. The Order retains current UK ETS free allocation benchmarks used in the free allocation calculation for the 2027 scheme year, and adopts updated EU benchmark values for the years 2028, 2029 and 2030 of the 2027 to 2030 allocation period. The Order enables a gradual phase-out of free allocation for sectors covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, during the period 2027 to 2030. The Order clarifies the annual reporting requirement that applies to installations that receive a free allocation and who choose to permanently cease their activities, and the Order covers England, Wales and Scotland in territorial extent. Advice was sought from the Committee on Climate Change on the proposals covered in the Order. By making the UK emissions trading scheme a more robust, fair and effective tool for reducing emissions, whilst ensuring that our industries can continue to compete globally, we will be better placed to achieve Wales's decarbonisation goals.
As always, I wish to offer my thanks to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their diligent and rigorous scrutiny of the Order. I therefore, Dirprwy Llywydd, commend the motion to the Chamber.
The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations on 26 January and the Welsh Government's response. The committee's report contains two technical reporting points. The first reporting point notes that the Order aims to insert text into the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 after a specific phrase. However, this specific phrase does not actually appear in the EU regulations. The report therefore asks the Welsh Government to clarify where the proposed text should be inserted. The Welsh Government has accepted this reporting point, and states it is working alongside the other Governments who form the UK Emissions Trading Schemes Authority to remedy the error at the earliest opportunity.
The second reporting point highlights that the Order has not been made or laid bilingually. The explanatory memorandum states that the Order in Council will be subject to UK, Scottish and Northern Ireland parliamentary scrutiny and therefore it is not considered reasonably practicable to do so.
Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. We're very grateful to the committee for bringing this to our attention under scrutiny point 1, and we accepted the point that was raised. As the Chair has pointed out, we're working alongside the other Governments that form the UK Emissions Trading Schemes Authority to determine the best option for addressing this issue, and the aim is, indeed, to remedy the error at the earliest opportunity. So, I thank the Chair for his contribution to this debate and, just to point out, this UK emissions trading scheme will continue to be a very important policy for Wales. It provides that vital investment signal that incentivises those sectors of the economy to transition and to flourish in a net-zero world. Diolch yn fawr.
We move on to item 10, which is an LCM on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Welsh Language to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6, agrees that provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Bill in so far as they have regard to devolved matters, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
On 26 November last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced changes to the income tax rates applied to income derived from property, those changes to be introduced from April 2027 onwards. A new set of income tax rates are to be established to reflect that policy change. The change will be delivered through the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which was introduced to the House of Commons following the conclusion of the debate on the budget resolution, which took place on 2 December. Included within the Bill are amendments to the current operation of the Welsh rates of income tax, separating property income from non-savings, non-dividend income, and thus providing for a specifically Welsh property rate to be established.
The Finance (No. 2) Bill also makes amendments to the Government of Wales Act 2006, which will take effect at a date agreed by the Welsh Government and the UK Government. These amendments will empower the Senedd to set specific rates for the Welsh property rates in addition to the existing Welsh rates. As a result, the Welsh rates of income tax will become two separate rates—one for income that is not property, savings or dividends, and the other for the Welsh property rates.
Dirprwy Lywydd, on 16 December, I laid the legislative consent memorandum of the Bill. It set out the Welsh Government's view that the passing of a legislative consent motion is the only way in which this additional power can be devolved to the Senedd. The Welsh Government supports the devolution of this additional power to the Senedd to vary the Welsh rates of property income. It will be a step in the direction of the Senedd having income tax powers that can be more effectively used to support the Welsh Government's priorities and the ambitions of the people of Wales. I therefore ask Members to support the proposals and to give their consent this afternoon.
Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to make a few remarks on behalf of the Finance Committee in relation to the legislative consent memorandum. The committee was grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for providing evidence on the LCM during our scrutiny of the final budget for 2026-27 on 21 January. That session was an opportunity for us to explore in more detail the implications of the Bill for Wales and for the existing and future fiscal responsibilities of the Senedd.
At the outset, we wish to place on record our support for the principle of devolving powers to set separate Welsh rates of property income tax. We also recognise that the sums involved may be modest in the context of the overall Welsh budget. However, the significance of this provision is not solely financial; it represents a small yet important and proportionate extension of devolution, and an acknowledgement that decisions about taxation in Wales should increasingly be taken in Wales.
We note that the practical operation of this power raises a number of important procedural and policy questions. Under clause 8(2) of the Bill, the power for the Senedd to set Welsh rates of property income tax would come into force on a day appointed by HM Treasury, with the earliest possible application being for the 2027-28 tax year.
During our discussions, we considered how the Senedd's existing procedures would need to evolve to accommodate an additional annual vote on property income tax rates alongside the existing resolution on the Welsh rates of income tax. As the Cabinet Secretary acknowledged during our scrutiny session, this has implications for Standing Orders, for the sequencing of budget business, and for the clarity and transparency of the Senedd's tax-setting role. We believe that these procedural questions will need to be considered carefully by the Business Committee in due course.
We also explored the interaction between the proposed devolution of property income tax powers and recent UK Government policy decisions. In particular, we discussed changes to the way property income is treated in the calculation of income tax liabilities, and the introduction of higher tax rates on property income as a result of the UK autumn budget. These changes have the potential to affect both the size and the distribution of the tax base. As a result, we wrote to the Cabinet Secretary seeking further clarification on how forecast revenues would be split between the Welsh rates of income tax and any newly devolved property income tax in 2027-28, and on the extent to which UK policy changes have influenced those forecasts.
We are also keen to understand the potential behavioural impacts of these combined policies, for example, whether they may incentivise greater incorporation of limited companies among landlords, and in relation to the implications for individuals with Welsh tax codes who derive property income in England and vice versa. These behavioural responses matter not only for revenue forecasting, but also for the fairness and effectiveness of the tax system as a whole.
Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, we looked at further developments in the area of property taxation policy. We noted the UK Government's intention to introduce a mansion tax in England from 2028 onwards, applying to most residential properties valued at over £2 million. The Cabinet Secretary agreed to provide further information on the mechanisms that will be used to implement this policy, and, importantly, on whether the Welsh Government has the powers to introduce a comparable tax, levy or surcharge in Wales, should it wish to do so in the future. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Welsh Government and the UK Government as these matters develop between now and the dissolution of the Senedd. Thank you.
Sorry, the light hadn't come on. Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The committee considered the memorandum at our meeting on 19 January and agreed our report at our meeting on 26 January. The memorandum sought consent in relation to one element of the Bill, namely the creation of a new type of income tax, property income tax, and for Welsh rates of property income tax to be set by the Senedd. These provisions are set out in clause 8 and paragraphs 2 to 4 of Schedule 2 to the Bill. The Welsh Government agrees with the UK Government’s assessment of the provisions that require consent. The committee agreed with the Welsh Government’s assessment that the provisions would require the consent of the Senedd. We noted that the Bill does not delegate any regulation-making powers to Welsh Ministers.
Clause 8(2) of the Bill specifies that the provisions for separate Welsh property tax rates that are to be set by the Senedd will come into force on a day appointed by HM Treasury by regulations. The soonest these provisions can be brought into force is the 2027-28 tax year. The memorandum doesn’t provide information on the engagement between HM Treasury and the Welsh Government on the Bill. In particular, there is no information about whether discussion took place regarding whether Welsh Ministers could have been granted the power to bring these regulations into force for Wales, instead of HM Treasury.
We therefore ask, in our report, for an explanation from the Cabinet Secretary for finance on how clause 8(2) of the Bill takes into account the Welsh Government’s principles on UK legislation in devolved areas, which provide that delegated powers in UK Bills in devolved areas should be conferred on Welsh Ministers alone. We also ask for confirmation from the Cabinet Secretary about the assurances received from the UK Government that the power proposed for the Senedd in the Bill will be commenced and, accordingly, the date on which he expects those powers to be commenced by HM Treasury.
Finally, we acknowledge that the Bill introduces a new financial lever for Wales by introducing the power to set separate Welsh rates for property income tax. The committee has therefore requested further information from the Cabinet Secretary on whether the Welsh Government has engaged with the UK Government, as part of discussions relating to this Bill, on the subject of further devolution of other reserved elements of income tax. This includes, but is not limited to, dividend income.
A personal question: will the amount raised in Wales from this tax be removed from the block grant?
As we've heard from the Cabinet Secretary today, we are asked to support further tax-raising powers for Wales through this legislative consent motion. The Welsh Conservative group will be voting against this LCM here today.
At its core, this proposal is another step towards introducing more tax, further creating a separate tax system from the rest of the UK, and expanding the Welsh Government's ability to impose further charges through the property income tax. We remain clear on these benches that additional taxes are not always the right lever to seek to improve those services or outcomes that people need and want to see. Those taxes can put off investment, they can undermine local businesses, and they can shift the burden onto ordinary families already feeling the squeeze from rising living costs. We believe that the powers in this place should be used responsibly, and every bit of effort this place has should be put towards looking at those existing powers to ensure they are working best for the people of Wales, not always seeking to introduce new tax-raising powers. Giving more tax powers without firm safeguards, without clear accountability, and without strong evidence that it would deliver better outcomes for Wales is something that we cannot support. For these reasons, we'll be voting against this LCM here today.
I'd like to confirm that Plaid Cymru will be supporting this motion today, although, if we look at the Bill as a whole, we do regret some of the elements that have been included, but certainly, if we look at the specific impact of this legislative consent motion, it is something that we welcome, and we are happy to support it. Many of the questions that I was going to raise have already been asked, so I won't rehearse those.
One of the things I wanted to ask is: do you see any barriers to introducing these in 2027-28? Has an initial assessment been carried out by the Cabinet Secretary of the possible implications of using this power? For example, what level of revenue could this raise, and what are the possible behavioural changes being considered? Certainly, this is a step towards ensuring that this Senedd can levy property income tax. It's positive, it's a step towards creating a stronger, fairer taxation system, which increases the flexibility of the fiscal framework of Wales. There's more to be done, but it is to be welcomed, and that's why we will support it.
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thanks to all Members who've taken part in the discussion. A number of questions were raised about when the power will become available to the Senedd. I don't think it's possible to anticipate that because the Senedd this afternoon could reject the drawing down of this power. The discussions that I've held twice with the relevant Minister in the Treasury have to wait until the Senedd has decided whether or not it wishes to take advantage of this latest possibility for devolution.
A number of Members asked a question about the amount of money involved in a separate property income tax for Wales. Well, in 2023-24, property income accounted for 1.6 per cent of non-savings, non-dividend income in Wales. That means that, in effect, it's about £50 million a year we're talking about being raised, if you separate income derived from property and make it subject to a separate decision. And, of course, the point that was well made by the Chair of the Finance Committee that were the Senedd to agree to the passing of the legislative consent motion, there will be implications for the Senedd itself in terms of its procedures.
But once again, Dirprwy Lywydd, what you really see in this debate on the floor of the Senedd is the fault line that's always been there: the Welsh Conservative Party, reactionary to its core, determined to oppose any advance in the cause of devolution. No matter how small and how sensible, they would be against it, and we've heard that again this afternoon. On this side of the Chamber, we've had a welcome for these proposals.
Dirprwy Lywydd, I've had many differences with the Treasury over many years, but it was really heartening in this case to see the Treasury itself recognise that there was a devolution issue here; that the Treasury itself proposed that the Senedd should receive this additional slice of devolution, so that the decisions about property income should be made where they should be made, here in Wales. Labour is the party of devolution and this is a very concrete example of that.
These powers will be modest in their scope, but nevertheless add to the repertoire of fiscal devolution, a process began by the Conservative Government in its Wales Act 2017. It was a Conservative Government that passed income-tax-bearing powers to Wales, and the Government that decided on that would be very puzzled that the Conservatives in this Chamber aren't intending to support a policy trend that they themselves initiated. I hope other Members here will support the motion.
The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. I will defer voting under this item until voting time.
Item 11 today is a motion to vary the order of consideration of Stage 3 amendments to the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill. I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Huw Irranca-Davies.
To propose that Senedd Cymru, in accordance with Standing Order 26.36:
Agrees to dispose of sections and schedules to the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill at Stage 3 in the following order:
The first vote this afternoon is on item 4, the Tax Collection and Management (Visitor Levy Costs) (Wales) Regulations 2026. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, nine against, therefore the motion is agreed.
The next vote is on item 6, the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Act 2018 (Continuation) Regulations 2026. I call for a vote on the motion in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, 10 against, therefore the motion is agreed.
The next vote is on item 7, the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Minimum Unit Price) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I call for a vote on the motion in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, 10 against, therefore the motion is agreed.
The final vote this afternoon is on item 10, the legislative consent motion on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Mark Drakeford. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, 10 against, therefore the motion is agreed.
There will now be a short break before we move to Stage 3 proceedings. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene. I would encourage Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please.
The first group of amendments relate to prevention. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 32. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'd like to thank all those who've co-operated with me in developing the amendments being brought before you this afternoon. Special thanks must go to Mostyn in my office, both the clerking and legal teams, and especially Crisis, Shelter Cymru and Cymorth Cymru. In fact, all four amendments in my name in this group are supported by Crisis, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, End Youth Homelessness Cymru, Llamau, Tai Pawb, the Wallich and the Bridgeman Community Foundation.
In terms of amendments 34 and 35, they address the fact that there is an omission of a right to review the reasonable steps taken during the prevention duty. My understanding is that, under the current drafting of the Bill, a person will only gain the right to request a review of the reasonable steps taken under the prevention duty once the prevention duty has come to an end. Simply, that means that the right to review will only happen once the person has lost their home and is homeless. In light of the evidence given on this point during Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill, I don't believe that this is the Welsh Government's intention.
As such, my amendments would rectify this by enabling an applicant who felt that reasonable steps had not been taken to prevent their homelessness to request a review during the six-month prevention duty. Amendment 32 strengthens amendments 34 and 35, because it clarifies that local authorities must keep records of the reasonable steps taken during the prevention duty. This is a simple but important administrative amendment to ensure fairness and transparency. For a review to take place in a fair manner, it is crucial that a record of the steps taken is held by the local authority.
Amendment 33, which I'm pleased to see is formally being supported by Joel James and the Welsh Conservative group, requires that, when determining if accommodation is suitable for a person, a local housing authority must have regard to any assessment of a person's case carried out in accordance with section 62 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. Why is that needed? Recent case law found that the failure to carry out the assessment did not invalidate the suitability decision, and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Without these amendments, the Bill would enable such a situation to arise here in Wales. This is completely contrary to the aim of this legislation, which is to create a sustainable system that is centred around the individual. I raised this point with the Cwnsler Cyffredinol last week. She disagreed with the need to amend the legislation, saying that the case law, in fact, and I quote,
'strengthens the position in Wales quite considerably.'
I don't understand that comment. The case law clearly allows decisions to be made without assessments. That does not strengthen establishing people-centred plans. In fact, it does quite the opposite. I'd be very interested to hear the Cabinet Secretary's response on this point. I believe that it would strengthen this Bill; it would provide clarity on the need for assessments to inform decisions and reviews. This would deal head on with any issues caused by the recent case law. Diolch.
The amendment I've proposed is intended to clarify that the contents of the housing needs assessment must be taken into account when making any decision as to the suitability of accommodation, as well as any subsequent review stage. At present, the position is such that the decisions regarding the provision of accommodation are to be made without entitlement to know whether the applicant has any specific housing requirements, or what those requirements may be. This creates a risk that decisions are taken on an incomplete evidential basis. Requiring reviewing officers to have regard to the housing needs assessment would enable more informed and robust decision making and would reduce the likelihood of unsuitable accommodation being offered to applicants.
Concerns have also been raised in light of recent case law in England concerning decisions on suitability made in the context of deficient housing needs assessments. In that context, and bearing in mind the Welsh Government's stated intention to move towards a more person-centred approach to homelessness services in Wales, it is considered both appropriate and helpful to make explicit that a housing needs assessment must be considered when determining the suitability of accommodation. It is further intended to clarify that the decision maker must also take account of any deficiencies identified within that assessment. Thank you, Llywydd.
This is all about the prevention of homelessness. I want to commend the role of Cardiff Council in rigorously using housing first as a strategy to fulfil their obligations where at all possible.
I'm currently dealing with the case of a child with no legal guardian threatened with eviction at the end of this week. His legal guardian has died and the courts have yet to determine whether the person applying to replace them is appropriately qualified to take on that considerable responsibility. The home they've lived in for most of their lives is suitable for their needs, as whoever the courts appoint will need a separate bedroom from the child. Yet the social landlord currently deems that the rights from the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 require this child to be evicted on the grounds that they're too young to inherit the tenancy.
So, are the prevention clauses of the homelessness Bill strong enough to meet the paramount needs of the child? Section 4 already lays out the right to a review, and my sense is that the suitability of the accommodation that I've just laid out is already a very strong case for the social landlord to, hopefully, come to the view that I am taking that this child should remain in this property pending the appointment of a legal guardian who will then be able to take over the tenancy.
Clearly, all landlords have to protect the rights of all citizens to be fairly assessed, and somebody who's trying to game the system needs to be prevented from doing so—falsely claiming that they have a claim to a property. I'm not convinced that the Bill needs further amendment in this regard, but I would welcome the views of the Cabinet Secretary, without, obviously, knowing anything about the details.
Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government
Diolch, Llywydd. Before I talk to the amendments in this group, I'd just like to place on record my thanks to colleagues here in the Senedd and to our partners for their engagement and interest in the Bill. I particularly welcome the engagement of Siân Gwenllian and Joel James, and for their consistent and prolonged interaction with this work. I welcome amendments tabled by Rhys ab Owen at Stage 3 and the opportunity they provide for important discussion today. Whether it be through a role on committees, in tabling amendments, or supporting our broader policy aims, many colleagues here and outside of the Senedd have contributed to the evolution of this legislation—legislation that stands to make a very real difference to the people of Wales.
I know there is broad agreement for the principles of this legislation, and I believe we are aligned in our commitment to ensure this Bill safely traverses the final stages of scrutiny. We cannot afford to get this wrong. At its core is the lived experience of 350 people who have survived the horrors of homelessness. This Bill was developed with them, and our work today is for them.
However, we must not forget that to realise our aims, local authorities must be able to implement well. We only deliver our policy ambition by ensuring this Bill is deliverable. This is a difficult and fragile balance, but a balance I believe we have struck. Some amendments today place this balance at risk, and I urge caution. We must maintain stability to ensure that the opportunities offered through these reforms are realised, and I ask everyone to consider this carefully as we progress this debate.
So, let me move now to the amendments in group 1. Section 4 of the Bill inserts new section 63A and 63B in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 to ensure that every applicant owed a duty has their own prevention, accommodation and support plan—PSAP for short—and that the plan is maintained and kept under review. The introduction of PSAPs is key to our prevention focus. As the title of the plans make clear, they require a holistic assessment of the applicant’s needs in relation to prevention or relief of homelessness and wider issues in their life, in addition to considering what accommodation might be necessary.
The PSAP will ensure that everyone owed a duty receives support tailored to their needs. It'll shift the focus of local housing authorities from technical delivery of a process to a person-centred approach.
Amendments 32 and 34 demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill as currently drafted, particularly the role of the PSAP. The Bill clearly states that the PSAP forms part of an applicant's written records and describes in some detail the joint role for the local housing authority and the applicant in putting their plan together. Moreover, it sets out an extensive list of requirements for the PSAP, including to record the reasonable steps to be taken to prevent homelessness and to ensure the applicant is given a copy of the plan.
Diolch yn fawr, Cabinet Secretary. 'Unnecessary', you might say, Cabinet Secretary, but you don't have to listen to me when I say that they are necessary. If there's any doubt that the case law will impact on the right to review, just look at who supports these, as I've already said: Crisis, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, End Youth Homelessness Cymru, Llamau, Tai Pawb, the Wallich, Bridgeman Community Foundation—these are the organisations supporting homeless individuals every single day. We should be listening and acting on their experience, evidence and concerns. Diolch yn fawr.
The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, 24 in favour and 24 against, and therefore I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed—24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against.
It is, by Rhys Owen. Is there any objection? [Objection.] There is. We will move to a vote on amendment 33. Open the vote. Close the vote. It is again a tied vote, and I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. And therefore the result of the vote is that there were 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 33 is not agreed.
We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 67. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is again tied. I will exercise my casting vote against amendment 67. The result of the vote is 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 67 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections to amendment 34? [Objection.] Yes, there are. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. Again, the vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against amendment 34. The result of the vote, therefore, is that there were 24 in favour, 25 against, no abstentions. Amendment 34 is therefore not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 35. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. There were, therefore, 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 35 is therefore not agreed.
The second group of amendments now, and the second group of amendments relates to local connection. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 36. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary's team for their time yesterday in discussing in particular these amendments. Ultimately, it was clear that perhaps the Cabinet Secretary and her team would have wished me to withdraw the set of amendments, but I will go ahead to explain why I have not and why I believe that these amendments are necessary.
There is already substantial evidence that some groups are at increased vulnerability from the local connection test. Amendment 42 protects a small number of people who have no local connection at all. Under the Bill, as currently drafted, a person within this small group would be able to apply to any local authority in Wales and would be entitled to interim accommodation for a finite period only, but not to the main housing duty. The consequences of these amendments failing are significant, as experience and evidence clearly show how difficult it is to end their homelessness.
I'm grateful again to Joel James and the Welsh Conservatives for their understanding and formal support, and I'm pleased that we have the backing again of Crisis, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, End Youth Homelessness Cymru, Llamau, Tai Pawb, the Wallich and the Bridgeman Community Foundation, who advise this, and I quote: 'We remain of the belief that, as drafted, the Bill does not provide sufficiently strong protection to people in this situation.'
Amendment 49 would mean that when an applicant has travelled from one local housing association—authority A—to another local housing authority—authority B—the applicant may recover any reasonable travel expenses incurred from authority B, if that authority owes them a housing duty. And this is simple, because homelessness and poverty go hand in hand. For example, one of the two main reasons why people become homeless is problems in the system, which include the rising costs of housing, the poverty trap and welfare benefit cuts.
The aim of my amendment is to ensure that the local connection test does not add to that poverty pressure. In short, it could mean that should a homeless person whose housing duty rests with Cardiff Council be staying temporarily in Swansea, they can be compensated the cost of travelling back to Cardiff by public transport from the fund by Cardiff Council. Interestingly, should there be no local connection test, that individual would not need to travel at all and could be housed in Swansea. However, bearing in mind that the test is to remain in, the costs of homeless individuals travelling to the relevant authority must not be met by that individual who is already in such a difficult circumstance.
The rest of my amendments in the group relate to for whom the local housing authority must secure suitable accommodation. Several witnesses, including Professor Mackie, Professor Fitzpatrick, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, the Wallich, Crisis, G4S Community, Clinks and the National Youth Advocacy Service said that they would be in favour of putting exempt categories on the face of the Bill, with a view to reinstating local connection for those categories in the future if it does, in fact, lead to unmanageable impacts. And it's important for us to tackle the point about unmanageable impact. For example, amendments 37 and 44 exempt an individual from the local connection test if the applicant is at risk of abuse if the case is referred to another housing authority. There will need to be evidence of that risk that will limit the requirement's application. Also, the wording of the amendment mirrors what was proposed by the Welsh Government in their White Paper.
Amendments 38 and 45, which refer to situations where the applicant has suffered abuse and will experience trauma as a result of that abuse if the case is referred to another local authority, would also require that same level of evidence. Additionally, again, this mirrors the wording of the proposal in the Government's White Paper, which, of course, was based on the recommendation of the expert panel, which included representatives of Crisis, Cardiff University, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, the Welsh Local Government Association, Carmarthenshire council, Conwy council, Pembrokeshire council, Community Housing Cymru and Tai Pawb. This is also the case for amendments 41 and 48, which relate to people who are care experienced, and 36 and 43, veterans and those who lived with them.
In terms of veterans, the Veterans' Commissioner for Wales has shared concerns that the Bill does not provide exemption from the local connection test for military veterans and their families in Wales. The commissioner noted, and I again quote:
'The failure to provide local connection exemption for homeless Veterans in Wales places them at a clear disadvantage to veterans in England and goes against the spirit of the Armed Forces Covenant.'
Again, amendments 39 and 46, which refer to prisoners who have been required to move from one local authority to another as part of their rehabilitation or to assist in meeting the restriction placed on where they may live, reflect the ask of the expert panel and the proposal in the White Paper. Additionally, stakeholders have identified local connection as a barrier, a huge barrier, to rehabilitation for prison leavers. The committee even heard from HMPPS, His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service. They said it would be helpful to have flexibility to exempt prison leavers from existing local connection tests, as there are, and I again quote,
The amendments I've proposed are brought forward in recognition of the evidence consistently provided by people with lived experience, who frequently tell us that they struggle to understand and navigate complex administrative systems. This concern was also a recurring theme during the committee evidence sessions. Against that background, it is considered beneficial, where an applicant is referred to an authority in England on the basis of local connection, for the referring local housing authority to ensure that the applicant is clearly informed of the referral and its implications. This is particularly important given that the systems of support and assistance provided by English authorities may differ from those available in Wales. This amendment would not impose a significant burden on local authorities. On the contrary, the requirement could be readily met through the provision of clear, plain language guidance drafted centrally and made available for use by all local authorities. Thank you, Llywydd.
I'd like to start by reaffirming my support for the core principles of this Bill, especially the intention to strengthen the system and ensure that it operates more fairly and more effectively for those who are most in need. I do draw attention to the fact that Plaid Cymru, during Stage 2, did succeed in removing section 35 from the Bill. I think that that was an important step forward. Including section 35 would have undermined the principle of universalism. That's a core principle for us in our party. So, I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for her support during Stage 2 in order to ensure that that is not in the Bill.
I want to talk about the amendments on local connection, amendments that we do oppose, to a great extent, but I do want to explain why, and be entirely clear that, of course, we do sympathise with the concerns that form the basis for them. Basically, this goes to the heart of the 'special circumstances' principle. In practice, this is the mechanism that can ensure that certain individuals or groups that don't fit neatly into the general rules are still protected. Our position is that we should include and treat those special circumstances in an appropriate way through regulations that are robust and flexible, rather than listing specific groups on the face of the Bill itself.
Now, I fully recognise that some of the groups that are mentioned in the amendments, including veterans and those who are leaving care, of course do face real disadvantages. The work that Plaid Cymru has done with military veterans and other vulnerable groups does show that our commitment to them is unequivocal. So, the argument against is not for a lack of will or a lack of understanding of the challenges that exist. But there is a question of principle here, and it is not reasonable, in our opinion, to include certain groups on the face of the Bill and then, if it becomes necessary to recognise other groups in the future, to have to do so through guidelines or secondary legislation that are less robust. What is proposed in the amendments is likely to create a complex and possibly unjust hierarchy between different groups of people, elevating some to the status of primary legislation. That is not the most sensible or fair way to design a system that claims to be based on need. Rather, this underlines, once again, the importance of using the regulatory powers that are contained in the Bill. Through regulations, it would be possible to consider all potentially disadvantaged groups as a whole and ensure that any differential treatment is fully justified and proportionate, and we can have appropriate consultation to avoid unintended consequences.
Finally, turning to Joel James's amendments 68 and 69, our understanding is that they would require the consent of the UK Government. Of course, we do not want to jeopardise the legislative competence of this Bill, given the tight timescale for the legislation and its important content, so we can't support those at this time.
I would want to express caution on any attempt to water down the local connection duty, because of the even more acute housing crisis in some parts of England, which is bound to encourage people to move to Wales if they think they can get away with it.
The failure of the UK Government to act on suspending the right to buy, despite announcing its intention to do so, is having a really devastating impact on the shrinking number of social homes in areas of huge housing need and very expensive private rented accommodation, for example like London. So, I would have considerable concerns about opening the door so wide that everybody would feel they could pile in.
We are a nation of sanctuary, but the numbers involved are tiny, and those are people who have already been sent to us by the UK Government, and we need to ensure that they're not abusing that nation of sanctuary.
Similarly, in terms of arguing who should have a local connection, we've already heard about veterans, survivors of abuse, former prisoners. A wilful future Government in London might deliberately transfer a prisoner to a prison in Wales at the very end of their sentence as a deliberate act to say, 'Well, you've got this open-ended commitment; you sort it out.' We absolutely have to have the powers to restrict it to those who are clearly the people I've mentioned, as well as a very tiny—very tiny—group of itinerant people who it would be possible to give an exemption clause to if they couldn't claim to be having a local connection anywhere in Britain.
So, I think that we should move with caution on this one in the context of the seamless borders we operate in and the need to ensure that we are able to deal with the numbers already needing social accommodation, and not making it impossible for us to ensure that everybody is appropriately housed.
I'd like to say I'm in full agreement with amendment 43, to give our serving personnel and our armed forces community adequate right to housing and an exemption from the local criteria. Our Veterans' Commissioner for Wales has been very clear, and he does an exceptional job in representing our veterans community across Wales, and their families, and if the veterans' commissioner is saying that this is going to create a problem for them, then I think this is something the Senedd needs to take really seriously. So, I'd like to thank Rhys ab Owen for bringing that amendment forward. I'd like to hear probably from the Minister, when she responds to this part of the debate, why this Welsh Government probably feels they cannot support this amendment. Because I was always led to believe that this Welsh Government supported our veterans community across Wales, and those people who have served our nation and were going to give the ultimate sacrifice so that we can all live our lives. So, I'd like to have an explanation from the Government of why they're not going to support amendment 43. Diolch, Llywydd.
Diolch, Llywydd. This group relates to the role of local connection in relation to homelessness duties and in relation to referrals between authorities. So, the circumstances in which a person may have a local connection to an area are unchanged by the Bill. They cover a wide range of circumstances linked to residency, employment, family associations and special circumstances connecting a person to an area. This ensures that local housing authorities have flexibility to take into account particular circumstances that may be specific to individuals or their own area, as needed.
The Bill also contains a range of regulation-making powers in relation to local connection. These powers enable us to further refine the scope of local connection by specifying circumstances in which a person has a local connection to an area, providing for additional exemptions from a local connection referral, and additional exemptions to the requirement to have a local connection to Wales.
Amendments 36 to 48 propose a series of circumstances in which a person would be exempt from the new local-connection-to-Wales test, which is set out in section 6 of the Bill. Llywydd, I cannot state strongly enough the danger these amendments pose to the integrity of the Bill. The amendments risk overburdening local authorities in Wales, creating a significant unquantifiable cost and seriously undermining the aims of the entire Bill. They are undeliverable and compromise the effectiveness of the carefully curated package of measures within the Bill.
The revised homelessness system for Wales, established by this Bill, is world leading and easily the most inclusive system within the UK. As I have stated countless times across all stages of the Bill, we must ensure resources to implement this Bill are targeted at communities in Wales. Local connection is a key tool in ensuring local authority resources are focused on people in their communities. These amendments undermine this. They fail to take account of cross-border implications, and make Welsh local authorities responsible for a potentially enormous number of people with no link to Wales.
As our White Paper made clear, we recognise there are some groups that may be disadvantaged by local connection, and I remain committed to exploring further how we can mitigate this impact. This must, however, be done extremely carefully, working with partners to ensure that an appropriate approach is applied across Wales. This is the reason the Bill contains a range of regulation-making powers in relation to local connection, which allow for us to refine the scope of it over time, managing these significant risks. I therefore strongly urge Members to vote against these damaging amendments, which risk the entirety of this Bill.
Moving now to the amendments relating to local connection referrals or movement between local authorities, amendment 49 would allow homelessness applicants to claim back their travel costs from an authority that owes them a duty under new section 75, if they have travelled to that authority from another authority that did not owe them a section 75 duty. The amendment is unclear, particularly in relation to why an applicant is travelling between authorities. It's very broadly worded, going beyond those cases where a person is referred from one authority to another, with no consideration of cross-border impacts. There are also no safeguards to manage the expense for local authorities or address unintended consequences linked to unnecessary travel, or use of the most cost-effective mode of transport.
I'm unable to support this amendment, which has not been raised at any earlier stage of legislative development, including during the work of the expert review panel or the White Paper consultation. There has been no consultation with local authorities, sector partners, people with lived experience or the wider homelessness and advice sector on a measure like this, and, certainly, no concerns raised with me on this matter. Without this engagement, there is no evidence to understand the impact of the amendment and its financial implications.
Thank you very much, Llywydd. I appreciate Siân Gwenllian’s arguments, but I don't agree with her. Having these on the face of the Bill won't complicate the issue. What could complicate the issue, and what could lead to things taking more time, a great deal more time, would be to do it through regulations—regulations that are often not scrutinised as much as Bills are scrutinised.
The needs of the groups that are included in my amendments are totally clear. You only need to go and speak to the homeless on our streets to see that these groups are represented very clearly. Interestingly, throughout the whole debate I haven't heard an example of a group that should have been included that has been omitted from my amendments.
Jenny Rathbone, this is not a matter of everyone piling in, and I'm not sure if we should be using language such as that, Jenny. I’m sure you probably didn't mean it like that. Obviously, it would be restrictive, and my amendments create restriction. And with the greatest of respect, I don't think we should be legislating in this place on the basis of what a potential, perhaps, sinister Westminster Government might or might not do. The likelihood of a Westminster Government deciding to send all the prisoners from English prisons to Welsh prisons is so unlikely, and then for them to decide that they want to stay in Wales.
I don't agree that these amendments are undeliverable. Certainly if, on the one hand, you think they will be included in future regulations, clearly they can be deliverable. And I don't agree that these amendments can be seen as damaging. Diolch.
Of course, and there are clear restrictions on who can be qualified, who can be deemed as to fit into the limited categories in the amendment. So, I think it deals with your concern and, of course, if there are future issues, we have to remember that there is such a thing as post-legislation scrutiny, post-legislation amendment.
I don't agree that my amendments are damaging. Once again, these are concerns that have been raised by homeless charities. Again, can I just remind everyone that these amendments, which the Cabinet Secretary has described as damaging, have been supported by Crisis, Cardiff University, Shelter Cymru, Cymorth Cymru, the WLGA, Carmarthenshire council, Conwy council and Pembrokeshire council? These councils—and the Cabinet Secretary is saying they would be undeliverable, the amendments—are supporting them, as are Community Housing Cymru and Tai Pawb. I see no reason why this clear issue should be ignored today, and I encourage everyone to vote in favour. Diolch.
The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, we will therefore move to a vote on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. That amendment is therefore not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections to amendment 37? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 37 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections to 38? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 38 is not agreed.
It's moved, yes. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There is objection. So, open the vote on amendment 39. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 39 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections to amendment 40? [Objection.] Yes, there are. Open the vote on amendment 40. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 40 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 41. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 41 is not agreed.
Yes. Are there any objections to amendment 42? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 42. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 42 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, open the vote on amendment 43. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 43 is not agreed.
It is, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections to that? [Objection.] Yes, there are. So, we'll open the vote on amendment 44. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 44 is not agreed.
It is moved, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, we'll open the vote on amendment 45. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.
It is moved, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 46. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, and 36 against. Amendment 46 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 47. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, and 36 against. Amendment 47 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Open the vote on amendment 48. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 48 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Therefore, we will open the vote on amendment 49. Close the vote. In favour 1, 22 abstentions, and 25 against. Therefore, amendment 49 is not agreed.
We'll move now to group 3. This group of amendments relates to ending homelessness duties. The lead amendment is amendment 50. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the amendment and to speak to the group.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. The purpose of amendment 50 is to ensure that applicants are made aware of free independent advice if a local authority suggests ending the main housing duty—that meaning a housing option other than social home or private rented home. This enables applicants the opportunity to take independent advice on the consequences of accepting such an offer and to make a well-informed decision. It should also help to prevent people from feeling pressurised into ending the housing duty in a way that doesn't meet their needs.
For local authorities, ensuring that applicants have access to independent advice will also give confidence that the right decision is being taken and reduce the risk of decisions being challenged at a later date. The expert review panel recommended that introducing such an expansion of means to end a main housing duty should be accompanied by a series of clear safeguards to ensure alternative accommodation offers are sufficiently secure and that the applicants do not feel pressurised to accept an offer that is not in line with their needs and wishes.
While a number of these safeguards do appear in the Bill, the proposal that applicants be offered access to independent advice is absent. Whilst the Local Government and Housing Committee has recommended—and the Cabinet Secretary has accepted this—that statutory guidance should cover the need for local authorities to offer independent advice in this situation, I agree with the homeless charities that this requirement should be included on the face of the Bill, given the significance of the protection it provides.
Again, I thank Joel and the Welsh Conservatives for formally supporting not only amendment 50 but also amendment 51 in this group. Amendment 51 relates to the clause on violent or threatening behaviour and seeks amendments to ensure that the application of this clause will not unfairly harm those who are victims of abuse. I cannot emphasise enough that while, of course, we must seek to protect our valuable homelessness workforce, we must also consider how these measures can be balanced with a trauma-informed approach that takes into account the individual conducting the unacceptable behaviour, their situation and the impact that applying this clause will have on them and their families. My amendment 51 achieves that for victims of abuse.
Finally, amendment 52 scraps the property damage subsection completely. I agree with the homeless charities that property damage has no place in housing legislation. The damage of property is already a criminal matter; there are already sufficient measures to deal with property damage under criminal law. It does not need to be duplicated in housing law. Diolch yn fawr.
This series of amendments is proposed to ensure that section 19 of the Bill is more trauma informed. I'm acutely aware, as highlighted in the Local Government and Housing Committee Stage 1 report, that the implications of these clauses can be drastic for a person who is discharged from support services. Those discharged under these clauses risk losing access to vital support, facing prolonged homelessness and experiencing the development of additional support needs.
Amendments 71 and 72 are therefore intended to ensure that should the clause on property damage remain in the Bill, it does not unfairly penalise individuals who have shared a household with someone who has been violent and abusive. They also make clear that the discharge of duty should only be applied in circumstances where authorities cannot safely perform their functions, and that such powers should be used as a last resort to protect household members who have experienced abuse.
Amendment 73 addresses the clause on violent or threatening behaviour, and carries the same protections, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly affected, and that discharge of duty only occurs where safety considerations make it unavoidable. I consider that these amendments align closely with conclusions 7 and 8 of the Local Government and Housing Committee's report. I acknowledge the Cabinet Secretary's response and her stated reluctance to amend these sections. However, based on our experience, particularly of special circumstances clauses in other areas of legislation being misapplied or implemented in ways that are not person centred or trauma informed, I believe that these amendments would further strengthen the legislation and safeguard both individuals experiencing homelessness and the staff supporting them.
I acknowledge that the Welsh Government has committed to producing guidance on these clauses. Nevertheless, I maintain that these amendments are necessary to provide clarity and consistency in the application of these clauses, ensuring that the Bill delivers its objectives without causing unintended harm. Thank you.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank Rhys ab Owen and Joel James for their amendments in this group, which concerns circumstances in which homelessness duties can be brought to an end.
I've made clear throughout Stages 1 and 2 that my focus and the focus of our partners should always be on how we help people, not whether we help them. It is, however, an uncomfortable truth that in some cases local authorities must be enabled to end duties to people who pose an unacceptable risk to others. The staff who run our homelessness services are our greatest asset; they are core to all we do. It's unacceptable for them to face violence or threats in the workplace, and the Bill provides local authorities with the tools to address this. This is not a decision that I've taken lightly, but I must balance the rights of applicants with protecting our workforce; without them, we will never meet our aims.
Section 19 of the Bill enables local authorities to end duties where there is violent and threatening behaviour or intentional or reckless damage to property, but only if there are no special circumstances that would require the continuation of the duties, and, in relation to damage, only where the applicant has no reasonable excuse for their actions. I expect these provisions to be used carefully and believe the Bill as drafted strikes the right, if not difficult, balance.
Amendment 50 relates to section 7 of the Bill, which sets out further circumstances in which the main duty to secure accommodation for applicants in section 75 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 can come to an end. The Bill allows the main housing duty to be discharged into a wider range of accommodation options than the current legislation. The main duty in section 75 can be discharged where suitable accommodation is available for at least 12 months.
The Bill builds in safeguards: the applicants must be informed in writing of potential consequences of agreeing to ending of the main duty, and must agree that the duty should end. In addition, crucially, section 18 of the Bill stipulates that the local housing authority must also check in with those provided these accommodation options to ensure the living arrangements are working well and to help them avoid returning to homelessness.
Amendment 50 proposes an additional requirement: that applicants must be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain independent advice before agreeing to the ending of the main duty under section 75. The code of guidance already encourages local authorities to signpost all applicants to independent advice. I am therefore of the view that the amendment is unnecessary. I also disagree with the premise of the amendment. Targeting independent advice only at those who are having their duty discharged one way undermines a broader principle that independent advice should be available to all applicants, not only those affected by this particular provision.
I also have concerns about unintended consequences. It's unclear what would constitute a reasonable opportunity and interpretation of this would likely vary between areas. It's possible that this amendment would lead to delays in moving people through the system, potentially preventing applicants from accessing suitable accommodation promptly, with resultant financial and societal costs relating to increased time spent in temporary accommodation. I therefore urge all Members to resist amendment 50. It is unnecessary, unclear and risks unintended consequences.
Amendment 51 proposed by Rhys ab Owen inserts an additional line into section 19 of the Bill, specifying that where an applicant is a victim of abuse, or where the violent or threatening behaviour of an applicant is connected to abuse, homelessness duties cannot be brought to an end. Similarly, amendment 73 proposed by Joel James adds an additional line to section 19 specifying that where there is intentional destruction or serious damage to property, and that damage is connected to abuse, homelessness duties cannot be brought to an end.
I understand the aim of these amendments, but I am of the strong view that the Bill already contains sufficient safeguards to address them. It is not necessary or appropriate to specify a single example covered by the special circumstances provision. There are unintended consequences in doing so that might lead people to feel abuse is the only reason that can negate the impact of the test, and this is wrong. Guidance is a more effective tool to set out the range of instances or circumstances that a local authority should consider when deciding whether to end duties where there is violence or threatening behaviour or intentional destruction or serious damage to property.
Amendment 52 removes provision from the Bill that would mean that local authorities will be unable to end a duty following intentional and reckless damage to a property. I am of the view that this should remain in the Bill. As I've said, the circumstances when duties can be ended are very narrow, but they are necessary.
Members must recognise that many people across Wales live in congregate settings where they share a common space or buildings. I cannot overstate the risk that exists if that property is intentionally or recklessly destroyed by serious damage caused to it. Such destruction has financial implications and impacts other residents. Most importantly, it poses a risk to life. We have to ensure that local authorities can take the steps necessary to protect all residents and their workforce, and for this reason I believe amendment 52 must be rejected.
Turning to amendments 71 and 72 proposed by Joel James, these would amend the Bill to require that where there is violence, the threat of violence, intentional destruction or serious damage to property, duties could only be ended where these behaviours result in a local authority not being able to exercise their functions safely.
The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Open the vote on amendment 50. Close the vote. The vote is tied, therefore I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Amendment 50 is therefore not agreed: 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against.
Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. Open the vote on amendment 68. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 68 is not agreed.
Are there any objections to amendment 69? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 69. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 69 is not agreed.
The next group is group 4, and this relates to help to retain suitable accommodation. The lead amendment is amendment 70, and I call on Joel James to move this amendment. Joel James.
Thank you, Llywydd. I'll be speaking to the lead amendment. This amendment would require local authorities, when determining whether or not assistance is necessary for an applicant to retain suitable accommodation, to have due regard to the views of the relevant social landlord. In many cases, the social landlord may hold more detailed and up-to-date information about the tenant's circumstances and housing situation, and is therefore well placed to inform that assessment. Taking such views into account would support more informed and balanced decision making, while helping to ensure that appropriate and proportionate assistance is provided. Thank you.
Diolch, Llywydd. This group relates to changes to section 17 of the Bill, the new duty to provide help to retain suitable accommodation. Amendment 70 requires local authorities to have regard to the view of the registered social landlord when determining whether an applicant is owed this duty. I appreciate that a landlord will have an important view on how a tenant should be supported, as will other public services who may be involved with a household. However, I must remind colleagues of the person-centred drafting of the duty. It is not a universal duty owed to all applicants, it is a specialised duty owed only to the most vulnerable. It relies on the active consent of the applicant whose voice must not be overridden. The amendment undermines the aim of the duty, prioritising the view of one body over others and over the applicant themselves.
The revised prevention duty and the new 'ask and act' provisions already mean that an RSL can refer applicants who are at risk of homelessness to a local housing authority for assistance. The prevention duty has been designed through the Bill to facilitate much earlier engagement with potential applicants. The Bill creates a cohesive process, which will ensure assistance for an applicant at every stage of their homelessness—early intervention and prevention, support if homelessness cannot be prevented and longer term support to create successful tenancies.
The process bakes in partnership working and a multi-agency response through 'ask and act', case co-ordination and the duty to co-operate. Local housing authorities will have to have processes in place when determining whether to apply or extend the duty to help a person retain accommodation, and seeking views from partners will be key to this. It is in the interest of all parties to help the applicant to keep their accommodation and prevent repeat homelessness. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment, which is unnecessary, duplicating and which undermines our policy intention. I ask that Members vote against amendment 70.
Are there any objections to amendment 70? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 70. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 70 is not agreed.
Yes, it is. Are there any objections to amendment 71? [Objection.] There are. So, open the vote on amendment 71. Close the vote. The vote is tied, therefore I will exercise my casting vote against amendment 71, which means that the result is as follows: there were 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 71 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 51. Close the vote. The vote is tied. Therefore, I exercise my casting vote against this amendment. The result is that there were 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 51 is therefore not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, amendment 52. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour, two. There are nine abstentions and 37 against. Therefore, amendment 52 is not agreed.
Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are objections. Open the vote on amendment 72. Close the vote. The vote is tied. And therefore I exercise my casting vote against amendment 72. Amendment 72 is therefore not agreed. The result is that there were 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against.
Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, open the vote on amendment 73. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against amendment 73. Amendment 73 is not agreed. There were 24 in favour, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore, amendment 73 is not agreed.
We'll move now to our fifth group of amendments and these relate to a duty to ask and act. The lead amendment is amendment 1. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the amendments—Jayne Bryant.
Diolch, Llywydd. The new duty to ask and act set out in section 20 of the Bill is a transformative addition to homelessness legislation in Wales. It delivers the long-held belief of this Government that preventing homelessness is the responsibility of the entire public service. It will be key to ensuring we intervene to assist people at risk of homelessness at the earliest opportunity and that the public services work together to assist people. I'm pleased to lay a series of technical amendments to the language used to describe the extensive list of bodies that will be subject to the duty.
The amendments in this section relate to changes to the term we will use to describe those who will be subject to the new duty to ask and act. The Bill currently uses the term 'specified public authority'. My amendments will replace this term with 'specified person'. In making these amendments, we align the terminology used elsewhere in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. I’m also making a series of other technical amendments to the new duty to ask and act so that, where it talks about individuals, it uses the term rather than person. This will avoid the potential for confusion in light of the changes we’re making to the use of the term 'specified person' instead of 'specified public authority', and will improve accessibility of the legislation. These are amendments 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 24. These changes to language are technical amendments to aid clarity. They make no substantive changes to the operation or effect of the Bill. I hope colleagues are able to support them.
Turning now to the non-Government amendments. I note amendments 53 and 54, tabled by Rhys ab Owen, to include local education authorities and primary care services within the duty to ask and act. I sympathise with amendments that seek to add further to the list of bodies subject to 'ask and act'. However, as we have explored extensively through Stage 1 and Stage 2, there are organisations where it is unnecessary to add them to the face of the Bill, where it is not the right approach in meeting our policy intention, or where inclusion does not align with broader sector agreements. The Bill contains a regulation-making power to allow us to add bodies to the list, should this be possible in the future. My colleagues in Plaid Cymru have also tabled an amendment to include a formal review of 'ask and act' within the Bill, which I hope will be supported by the Senedd.
Amendment 53 seeks to apply the duty to ask and act to primary care services. To be clear, the effect of the amendment goes beyond GPs, and includes NHS pharmacists, opticians and dentists. The 'ask and act' duty will already be placed on local health boards, and will cover a range of priority health services, including urgent and emergency care, in-patient care and mental health substance use services, and some services that may be accessed via a primary care service. When making asks of primary care, the Welsh Government generally does so via contracting arrangements managed by local health boards across Wales. Any new requirements of primary care must be managed with our existing work on inclusion health, and implemented in partnership with the various sectors. I recognise the important role that primary care services play in homelessness. GPs already operate under ethical and professional obligations and assist local health boards in safeguarding and inclusion health and care.
GP appointments are time-limited. Imposing a statutory 'ask and act' duty inside a 10-minute consultation could displace clinical care and risk unintended consequences for access and safety. Other primary care services are similarly stretched. I believe the duty is best placed on health boards that already hold wider statutory responsibility and commissioning levers. This includes urgent and emergency care, in-patient care and mental health substance use services. Work is under way with health services to take further steps in this area outside of the legislation, and I do not therefore believe adding primary care services to the Bill is necessary or appropriate.
Amendment 54 seeks to place the local educational authority under a duty to ask and act, and amendment 66 is a consequential amendment. This amendment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how 'ask and act' will work, and places the duty on bodies that will be unable to meaningfully fulfil its aims. The direct work undertaken with parents or children by local educational authorities varies across Wales. Placing a duty on them would not achieve our policy goals. Our schools are well placed to help children and their families, but the best way to do that is by building on existing good practice. Local authorities already have duties under the Education Act 2002 to make arrangements to ensure that their education functions are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Local authorities and other relevant bodies, including governing boards, must have regard to any guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers in deciding what arrangements they must make to comply with their duty. In my view, and the view of the Cabinet Secretary for Education, this existing duty to promote the welfare of children covers arrangements for children at risk of homelessness. Given the breadth of the existing law, we do not need to duplicate it within this Bill and instead can place our efforts on building on the good practice that I've seen for myself in schools, amending the existing 'Keeping learners safe' guidance—work that's already under way. There is some excellent practice happening in schools linked to community-focused school initiatives, family engagements and safeguarding. This provides the right basis for us to do our work and brings schools, teachers and the education unions with us.
As we have heard, amendment 74 is intended to reduce the risk that possession proceedings become protracted or unduly complicated by disputes as to whether a landlord has complied with the 'ask and act' duties when pursuing such claims. Given the breadth of the duty as currently drafted and the particular emphasis placed on the associated requirements, there is a risk that possession claims could become mired in technical arguments that distract from substantive issues before the court. The amendment therefore seeks to promote greater legal certainty and procedural efficiency in the conduct of possession proceedings. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The new 'ask and act' duty is vital to the success of this Bill as we move towards a preventative regime that tries to identify problems before they develop into a crisis. During Stage 2, I tried to strengthen this provision by including the police on the list and by providing for a review of the whole procedure in two years' time. But, of course, policing is not devolved, and pushing this could have jeopardised the Bill's competence, and I didn't want to create that kind of situation. But, of course, we have a broader vision and, in the longer term, I believe that there is a broad consensus that there is scope to include areas such as education and primary health, and policing, when it does come to Wales, within a purposeful 'ask and act' framework.
But we must be realistic and, at present, we're all fully aware of the enormous pressure on these sectors in terms of capacity, resources and the workforce. So, on that basis, we will be abstaining on the amendments that try to add the health and education bodies on the face of the Bill at present. That gives an indication that we do recognise the key preventative role that they play and that we don't want to close the door on their inclusion in the future. Rather, we are of the opinion that any further expansion of this duty should be based on a robust evaluation of the evidence and a full understanding of the practical implications for the services in question. We do have an amendment later on that, if it were passed, would mean that we would review all of this within two years and then could add bodies at that point, if there is evidence to support that. So, I'll be asking you to support that later on. Thank you.
Of course, primary care services and schools are true community-based services that people and young people at risk of homelessness are likely to encounter. I would also include the police in that, but, of course, policing is not devolved, as Siân Gwenllian already said. I don't agree with the pressure argument, because I think that will always be present. People will always argue that there's too much pressure on policing or education or on health to do this. And I understand, from the Cabinet Secretary's comments and from talking to her officials yesterday, that there's a suggestion there is angst amongst the education and medical sectors.
But I wish to explain why I think these amendments are needed. Firstly, if I deal with GPs, both Professor Mackie and Professor Fitzpatrick expressed disappointment at the exclusion of primary care from the list, with Professor Fitzpatrick noting that it is, and I quote,
'one of the most important community-based services that people at risk of homelessness are...very likely to come into contact with.'
With so many other services disappearing from our communities, you still have primary care in most of our communities. Dr Cosh said that as primary care see the majority of people who are at risk of homelessness, making those services subject to 'ask and act' duties is—and again I quote,
'the key to unlocking the prevention part of this duty.'
And there were numerous other witnesses who also were supportive of including primary care, including Rhondda Cynon Taf and Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. The very people who we say are under too much pressure are actually supporting the inclusion of primary care.
Now, in terms of education providers, their inclusion was recommended by the expert review panel. The amendment as drafted places the duty on education authorities, rather than on teachers and schools. Stakeholders representing young people unanimously called for the education sector to be included within the duty, with Voices from Care noting that it is the public service that nearly all children and all young people have a connection with on a daily basis. The point was echoed by GISDA, Newport City Council and G4S Community.
Now, whilst there's the impression given that the education and medical sectors are concerned about my amendments, I hope that I've shown this afternoon that there's clear evidence presented by a broad range of stakeholders, including those in the education and medical sectors, that support these amendments. Diolch yn fawr.
The Cabinet Secretary to reply. There is no reply. So, the question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? No, there is no objection. Amendment 1 is agreed.
Yes, it is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 53. Close the vote. In favour 12, 12 abstentions, 24 against. Therefore, amendment 53 is not agreed.
Yes. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 54. Close the vote. In favour 13, 11 abstentions and 24 against. Therefore, amendment 54 is not agreed.
We'll now move to group 6. These amendments relate to case co-ordination, and amendment 55 is the lead amendment. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the lead amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd. Sections 23 and 24 require protocols for handling cases involving care leavers and persons particularly in need of support. Voices from Care and End Youth Homelessness Cymru welcomed the joint protocols with social services, but called for the Welsh Government to mandate good practice and communication between social services and homelessness services with national protocol templates. In fact, End Youth Homelessness Cymru referred to an existing example in Carmarthenshire of a joint team already established, with joint working protocols from social workers, housing options advisers and youth homelessness co-ordinators, which is working really well, with fantastic results.
Bearing in mind that officials yesterday suggested to me that Welsh Government might resist these amendments because the Cabinet Secretary wishes local authorities to develop local models, I think I can reassure the Welsh Government that, upon careful reading of amendment 56, you will see that the purpose of the national protocol is, and I quote from the legal text of my amendment, to be a 'template to assist'. The important word for the Welsh Government here is 'assist'. It's not a template to dictate.
Amendment 55 makes it a requirement for a council or a county borough in Wales to publish a protocol for handling cases. The sole aim with these amendments is to assist with monitoring. Such an action is aligned with the view of the Local Government and Housing Committee that the Welsh Government should monitor co-operation. Diolch yn fawr.
Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government
Diolch, Llywydd. Section 24 of the Bill introduces a statutory duty that requires local authorities to have a protocol for handling cases involving persons in particular need of support. Amendment 55 seeks to require local authorities to publish their local case co-ordination protocol, and amendment 56 seeks to require Welsh Ministers to publish a national template protocol for case co-ordination to assist local authorities.
The purpose of the protocol is to achieve, among other specified objectives, effective case co-ordination for certain individuals with partner organisations. Many local authorities already utilise case co-ordination models that draw together a range of organisations to support individuals with multiple and complex needs. These models vary in form and reflect the demography and landscape of local areas. Some have been developed and manage a significant volume of cases, whilst others can take a smaller-scale approach.
In short, case co-ordination models across Wales are not the same, and nor should they be. We do not want to reinvent the wheel. All the evidence on multi-agency fora shows that localised buy-in and ownership are key to their success. We want to build on practice developed by local authorities because it works for them, not dictate a model that probably won't. For this reason, I cannot support amendment 56, which seeks to impose a national protocol, an approach that will not work and does not reflect current practice. Instead, there will be practice guidance setting out the principles for development of these protocols, alongside information on thresholding and case management, which we will co-produce with partners. This work is already under way.
Amendment 55 misunderstands the active partnership ethos behind section 24. Effective co-ordination relies on information exchange, strong relationships and communication, none of which are established through the paper exercise promoted by this amendment. The amendment suggests that the local authority will develop their own model and then inform others about it via publication. This undermines the purpose of case co-ordination, thwarts co-production and limits flexibility. The model itself must be jointly developed and co-owned to ensure it works for the most vulnerable in our communities. I therefore ask Members to resist this amendment.
The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 55. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against amendment 55. Therefore, there were 24 in favour, no abstentions and 25 against. Amendment 55 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 56. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against amendment 56. There were 24 in favour, no abstentions and 25 against. Therefore, amendment 56 is not agreed.
Group 7. The seventh group of amendments contains miscellaneous amendments. Amendment 28 is the lead amendment, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move these amendments.
Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 28 relates to section 28(4) of the Bill, which amends section 98 of the 2014 Act to ensure that statutory guidance under Part 2 of that Act is developed in consultation with all relevant partners. The amendment is technical in nature and ensures that the language used within the new provision is consistent with the language used in section 98 and refers to Part 2 of the 2014 Act.
Amendment 30 also relates to section 98 of the 2014 Act and is technical in nature, ensuring consistency of terminology within section 98. It provides clarity that the guidance Welsh Ministers may give under section 98 of the 2014 Act relates to Part 2 of that Act.
No other speakers. We're on group 8. [Interruption.] No, we're on group 7, I apologise. Thank you. It was my mistake. This is group 7. Any—? We have no contributors. Therefore the question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. The amendment is agreed.
Group 8 is next. This group of amendments relates to condition of accommodation. Amendment 80 is the lead amendment. Siân Gwenllian to move that amendment.
Thank you very much, Llywydd. The amendment in this group in my name relates to the quality and the condition of accommodation, and specifically the provision under section 29 of the 2014 Act. That section clearly states that a local authority should not consider accommodation that contains a category 1 hazard as being suitable. Let me be absolutely clear on this basic principle: no-one should have to live in unliveable accommodation, and the amendment in this group in my name does address that problem directly.
Category 1 hazards are recognised as a serious risk to the health and safety of occupants in a property—things such as dangerous stairs, electrical issues and damp. Tackling these issues is crucial, as they also threaten the well-being of the individual—it's not just an issue of health and safety; well-being comes into this as well. Local authorities already have a statutory duty to take action in respect of these hazards, so adding this requirement on the face of the Bill would not be revolutionary or a significant new burden; instead, it would make it clear that it is not acceptable for local authorities to commission or consider accommodation that contains these hazards. We believe strongly that the basic standard, namely that an accommodation that includes a category 1 hazard should never be seen as suitable—that that should be on the face of the Bill. This sets a clear line of expectations and sends a clear message of safety regarding individuals who face circumstances of this kind every day. And so, on that basis, we ask you to support this amendment—a sensible, proportionate and principled step to ensure that accommodation does not, under any circumstances, undermine the safety or well-being of the most vulnerable people
Amendment 80 aims to prohibit the use of accommodation that contains a category 1 hazard for discharging any homelessness functions. Let me say first and clearly that no-one should live in accommodation that is unsafe, and Siân and I can strongly agree on that point. However, I cannot support this amendment. As I've set out in my response to the Local Government and Housing Committee, Welsh Ministers already hold sufficient powers to deliver our policy intention on the suitability of accommodation through secondary legislation. This amendment is therefore unnecessary.
The White Paper set out several areas relating to the suitability of accommodation where we will prioritise use of these secondary legislative powers. These include category 1 hazards, but also changes related to overcrowding and shared sleeping space. There are several areas where action is required to improve the condition of accommodation, and I believe these need to be considered together, working with our delivery partners. Ongoing development of secondary legislation with our partners will ensure we deliver an effective response that takes account of these wider issues and will allow us to work through complex issues, such as how hazards are reported after placement, timelines for response and any necessary exceptions. It's also necessary to ensure we understand the impacts for all local authorities and offer additional support to those disproportionately impacted by the changes.
We also need to align to the Welsh housing quality standards and the new requirements for landlords to investigate serious hazards, which will come into force from April this year. These measures will strengthen accountability and transparency across the sector and challenge unacceptable failures from landlords. However, some time is necessary to embed the changes and to ensure that our secondary legislation integrates into this wider policy landscape. I therefore ask Members to reject this unnecessary amendment, but note my continued commitment to use our existing powers to achieve the same aim. This is not an arbitrary commitment. My officials are currently in discussion with local authorities in order that the next Government can bring forward regulations early in the eighth Senedd. I therefore ask Members to reject amendment 80.
Thank you very much. I hear what the Cabinet Secretary says, but I do want to move this amendment to a vote, because category 1 hazards are recognised as a serious risk to the health and safety of occupants in accommodation, and it's an important point of principle and will move things forward more quickly in terms of having it on the face of the Bill. Thank you.
The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Open the vote on amendment 80. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against amendment 80, and therefore the result of the vote is as follows. There were 24 in favour, no abstentions, and 25 against. Amendment 80 is therefore not agreed.
Group 9 is the next group of amendments. These relate to co-operation. Amendment 57 is the lead amendment. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the amendment.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. You'll be pleased to know that the reasons for these amendments are identical to those outlined for group 5 for educational and medical sectors, so I won't say much. The amendments in my name would extend the duty on specified public bodies to co-operate with a request from a local authority to include GP practices and local education authorities in Wales. I won't repeat the reasons why I think this is a good idea. It's based on good evidence. Diolch yn fawr.
These amendments to section 32 are included to achieve a number of related and important objectives. Firstly, they seek to ensure that landlords have access to relevant information about households' housing and support needs when they are required to comply with a request to provide accommodation, thereby enabling them to make an appropriate and informed allocation decision. Secondly, the amendments clarify that this duty applies only in respect of registered social landlords' social housing stock. In particular, they make clear that registered social landlords cannot be directed to allocate accommodation from their market housing, intermediate rent or student let portfolios. Thirdly, the amendments provide that appropriate statutory guidance must be in place before these provisions are brought into force, in order to support consistent and effective implementation. Finally, they ensure that local housing authorities as well as registered social landlords are required to have regard to the guidance when exercising their functions under these provisions. Thank you.
Amendments 57 and 58, tabled by Rhys, aim to include local education authorities and primary care services within the duty to co-operate. For the reasons I've already set out in relation to amendments 53 and 54, I cannot support these amendments, which are inappropriately broad and misaligned to the purpose of the duty.
The duty to co-operate enables local housing authorities to request the co-operation of specified persons in the exercise of their homelessness functions. Extending this duty to local education authorities and primary care services would be inappropriate, as these bodies are unlikely to be able to meaningfully contribute to the aims the duty is intended to achieve. The amendments would place the duty not just on GPs, but on NHS pharmacists, opticians and dentists—bodies that can play no relevant role to the duty. Likewise, a duty placed on the education authority does not target relevant professional roles.
The Bill contains a regulation-making power that means that we can add relevant bodies to the list of individuals subject to the duty over time. This power is the most appropriate mechanism for adding to the list in future, allowing for proper consultation and ensuring those made subject to the duty can meaningfully deliver its aims. I urge Members to reject these amendments. The bodies subject to the duty to co-operate must be in a position to assist local housing authorities in line with the purpose of the duty. The bodies added in via these amendments are not.
Section 32 introduces a new duty on social landlords to comply with a local authority’s request to make an offer of suitable accommodation for an applicant owed the final homelessness duty unless there is good reason not to. Amendment 75 proposes that an additional line is inserted into section 32, requiring that this duty applies only in relation to housing accommodation that would be available for an allocation of social housing under 160B of the Housing Act 1996, and that it is therefore only an offer of accommodation for the purpose of Part 6 of the Housing Act.
I do not believe this is necessary. Social landlords are required to make an offer of suitable accommodation unless there is a good reason not to. A lack of suitable accommodation would be a good reason. Social landlords are not expected to offer or provide accommodation that they manage or own for purposes other than social housing. Such an expectation would be unreasonable. I therefore urge Members to reject amendment 75 as it's unnecessary.
At Stage 2, I brought forward an amendment that requires the Welsh Ministers to give guidance, replacing the previous discretionary power to issue guidance, on this matter. The purpose of the guidance is to support local authorities and social landlords to implement the new duty in section 32. All partners can therefore be reassured that guidance will be in place.
Rhys ab Owen to reply. No. Okay, we will move to a vote on amendment 57. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are objections. We will open the vote on amendment 57. Close the vote. In favour 12, 12 abstentions and 24 against. Therefore, amendment 57 is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, we will open the vote on amendment 58. Close the vote. In favour 12, 12 abstentions and 24 against. Therefore, amendment 58 is not agreed.
Are there any objections to amendment 75? [Objection.] There are. We will open the vote on amendment 75. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 75 is not agreed.
It is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will open the vote on amendment 76. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 76 is not agreed.
Yes, it is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 77. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 77 is not agreed.
Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 78. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 78 is not agreed.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Amendment 59 enables reconsideration of the deliberate manipulation test where there is a relevant change of circumstances. Amendment 60 ensures that in order to apply the deliberate manipulation test, it must be clear that the person's intention was to deliberately manipulate the system. Amendment 61 protects people who may have been found to have deliberately manipulated, but were subject to domestic abuse or coercion, which led to these actions. Amendment 62 provides that the local authority should write a 'minded to' letter before applying the deliberate manipulation clause. And finally, amendment 63 enables the Welsh Government to make regulations to apply a time frame for which the deliberate manipulation test remains live. This would maintain the deterrent for people not to manipulate the system, but would also mean that people are not barred for life.
Why are these amendments required? Well, I agree with the concerns not only of the Local Government and Housing Committee, as outlined in conclusion 4 of its Stage 1 report on the Bill, but also, again, the homeless charities, that we must ensure that a deliberate manipulation test is applied in a trauma-informed manner, so that it does not leave vulnerable people unable to access social housing, and that it doesn't make the situation of vulnerable people even worse. We need to keep at the forefront of our minds that the intention of this Bill is not to punish, but to bring homelessness to an end in Wales. My amendments 59 to 63 would see us act on that important principle. Diolch yn fawr.
Thanks to Rhys for tabling these amendments. The intention of the deliberate manipulation test is to disincentivise any deliberate action that puts an individual's current housing at risk in order to gain access to or prioritisation when applying for social housing. The test will not affect access to homelessness assistance. It will mean the applicant will not be given preference for an allocation of social housing related to their homelessness. Any other reasonable preference will be retained. Applicants will continue to be owed any homelessness duty that applies to them.
Amendment 59 proposes that section 35 is amended so that, after asking for a reconsideration following a change in circumstance, an applicant previously found to have deliberately manipulated the housing system would no longer be treated as having done so. I understand the intention behind this amendment, but, in practice, it's unnecessary and unworkable. It's unclear how a change of circumstance would affect the initial actions taken by the applicant to deliberately manipulate the system, and the amendment will create confusion and lead to inconsistency in practice. The Bill already requires local housing authorities to review decisions relating to deliberate manipulation when requested to by applicants.
Amendment 60 proposes further amendments to section 35, which duplicate the existing drafting. This is clearly unnecessary, and the drafting of the new deliberate manipulation test sufficiently describes the acts or omissions that are intended to amount to trying to manipulate the housing allocation system. The current drafting around the test already introduces an additional safeguard by clarifying that an act or omission carried out in good faith by a person who was unaware of a relevant fact should not be regarded as deliberate. I therefore urge Members to reject amendment 60 on the grounds that it duplicates the existing drafting.
Amendment 61 amends section 35 to provide that applicants who were victims of abuse are not to be found to have deliberately manipulated the housing system. While I understand the concern for those who've experienced abuse, the test already provides sufficient safeguards, which are drafted broadly to aid inclusion and flexibility.
The deliberate manipulation test only applies where an applicant ceases to occupy accommodation that was reasonable for them to occupy. Let me be clear, it would never be reasonable for someone experiencing abuse to continue to occupy accommodation with their abuser. Experience of abuse within that accommodation would render it unreasonable to occupy, so the test would not apply in such circumstances. Additionally, even where applicants have entered into arrangements resulting in them ceasing to occupy accommodation that it would otherwise have been reasonable for them to occupy, the test can only apply where there is no other good reason why the person became homeless. I am therefore of the view that this amendment is not necessary and unnecessarily narrows the provision.
Does Rhys ab Owen wish to reply? No. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Open the vote on amendment 59. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. The amendment is not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 60. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 60 is not agreed.
It is, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 61. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, amendment 61 is not agreed, with 24 in favour and 25 against.
It is, by Rhys ab Owen. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 62. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 62 is not agreed.
Amendment 63 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 63. Close the vote. In favour two, nine abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 63 is not agreed.
Thank you, Llywydd. As this is the last time I'll be speaking today, I would just like to reiterate my previous thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for her openness and engagement throughout this process, especially at Stage 2, and to also thank those who have provided help and assistance to me whilst drafting these amendments.
This lead amendment seeks to exempt management transfers, carried out by registered social landlords, from the requirement to be processed through the common housing register. This would align the position of registered social landlords with that which already applies to local authority-owned housing, where such transfers are exempt from the allocations framework by virtue of section 159(5) of Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.
The rationale for this exemption is that requiring management transfers to proceed through the common housing register would not, in many cases, be practically achievable and could undermine the primary purpose of such transfers, which is to ensure the safety and well-being of tenants. Providing a clear exemption would therefore support timely and effective interventions where urgent rehousing is required. Thank you.
Our amendments in this group seek to place a clear duty on Welsh Ministers to ensure that general information about housing registers, and their use in respect of allocation of housing, is published in all local authority areas.
This is an important and timely amendment. At present, while some data are collected and published on StatsWales, there are no data about the housing registers themselves that are available in a consistent or accessible way, which is astonishing, really. At best, the data appear at a fairly high level in local housing market assessments and these are updated arbitrarily across Wales, it would seem. I'm aware that stakeholders such as Shelter, for example, have to rely on freedom of information requests to find out how many people are on waiting lists, which shows how difficult it is to obtain comprehensive data. That's why I do think that having statutory guidance is vital in this area. Data on housing registers offer a real opportunity to improve transparency for applicants, but it won't be possible to do that if there is no consistency in terms of how the data are gathered and recorded and presented.
There are some examples of good practice already. Cardiff Council, for example, has developed a waiting times calculator for over a decade, which allows applicants to see information about the number of homes that are available and their chances of getting an allocation, and the data that are the basis of this are already being collected. But this approach has not been rolled out nationally. Placing a national requirement on local authorities to submit more detailed data about waiting lists would provide a clearer national picture of the need for housing—or rather, it would be clearer than what we have at present—and it would be possible to use those data better to set targets and monitor progress.
Therefore, we do ask the Senedd to support this amendment. Placing a duty on Ministers to present clear guidance on the collection and publication of data is a sensible and proportional step to ensure consistency and better transparency. And I thank the Cabinet Secretary for co-operating with me on this very important issue, since we first discussed it at Stage 2.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank Siân Gwenllian and Joel James for bringing forward the amendments in this group. I particularly welcome Siân's amendments on common housing registers and accessible housing registers, and for the constructive and collaborative discussions that we've had over recent weeks. We both recognise the importance of improving transparency, consistency and public understanding of housing need in Wales. These amendments will help ensure that the public at large will have better and more consistent information about the data held on common and accessible housing registers.
Let me begin by addressing Joel's amendment. Amendment 79 aims to specify that accommodation owned or managed by a social landlord that should be considered outside of that to be offered via the common housing register should include transfers of accommodation to tenants already under a secure or introductory standard contract. The Housing Act 1996 provides clear exemptions for offers of accommodation that fall outside social housing allocations. These exemptions apply to existing secure contract holders and introductory standard contract holders, regardless of who the landlord is. Therefore, social landlords are already exempt when making offers of accommodation to existing contract holders, unless they are transfers made at the applicant's request, and therefore these can be made outside of the common housing register. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary as the exemption it tries to achieve is already in place.
Turning to the amendments tabled by Siân, section 37 of the Bill already requires common and accessible housing registers to be established and maintained by local housing authorities and makes provision about regulations in relation to these registers. These amendments clarify expectations about the information that should be available via these registers. I will address each amendment briefly.
Amendment 81 ensures the Welsh Ministers must make regulations for and in connection with common housing registers. Amendment 82 requires that these regulations provide for two key outcomes: that the applicant can access information relating to their own application; and the publication of general information held on the register. These provisions will improve applicant understanding and strengthen transparency in relation to localised and national housing need.
Amendment 83 enables the regulations to make provision about the creation, collection, collation and publication of information relating to the register or its operation in the allocation of housing. This broad power will assist the Welsh Government and local authorities to produce consistent and meaningful publication of data. Amendment 84 clarifies that the regulations may provide for functions to be exercised by either Welsh Ministers or local housing authorities, as appropriate. This will ensure regulations can place requirements on Welsh Ministers.
Are there any objections to amendment 79? [Objection.] Yes, there are. Open the vote on amendment 79. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 79 is not agreed.
We'll move now to our twelfth group of amendments, and these relate to rent guarantees. Amendment 89 is the lead amendment, and I call on Siân Gwenllian to move it.
Thank you very much, Llywydd. This group relates to rent guarantees, and specifically to placing a duty on the Welsh Ministers to issue clear guidance to local authorities on making arrangements where a local authority guarantees the payment of rent on behalf of a tenant. So, this relates to the most vulnerable tenants in our society, and the purpose of this group is to highlight a real opportunity to strengthen the Bill by introducing provisions on rent guarantors, in line with the policy intention that was stated by the Welsh Government itself in the White Paper on adequate housing—the White Paper that we were part of preparing during the co-operation agreement.
In that document, the Government acknowledges the need for a consistent national approach, with clear eligibility criteria, in order to help people who do not have access to private guarantors. And this is a very practical issue. Many of the organisations that we collaborate with support people who live in poverty, or in close proximity to it, without a strong social support network. For those people, the requirement to provide a guarantor when trying to rent a home can be a significant barrier, and very often they can't move on and continue to be homeless because of this barrier. This is particularly true of young people who are experiencing homelessness or are trying to resettle after a period of housing insecurity.
Rent guarantees provided by local authorities can make a direct difference in to individuals who can't secure accommodation without them. And at present, their use varies significantly between areas. There is a lack of consistency in terms of who is eligible, the terms, and how the support is promoted or offered. And that's why I think this amendment is so important. By placing a duty on the Welsh Ministers to publish guidance, after consultation with local authorities and relevant partners, local authorities can be encouraged to offer this support more often and more consistently across Wales.
It's important to remember that it doesn't create a hard duty on local authorities to implement a specific plan, but rather it provides a clear national framework that supports and empowers local authorities to help those most likely to be excluded from the private rental market. Thank you.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful to Siân Gwenllian for tabling this amendment, and I've been pleased to work with her to develop the proposed provision.
I support the amendment that formalises a commitment made in the White Paper on securing a path towards adequate housing, including fair rents and affordability. As a result of the amendment, the Welsh Government will be required to develop national guidance to local authorities on the provision of rent guarantee schemes. The inclusion of this amendment supports the strong prevention focus of the Bill. It enables use of an additional device to reduce barriers to renting, improve access to housing and enable individual housing stability. Rent guarantee schemes particularly benefit groups most at risk of homelessness, including people on low incomes and those leaving care. As such, I welcome the amendment today tabled by Siân. It strengthens the homelessness prevention toolkit used by local authorities and does support our policy intention around early intervention and upstream homelessness prevention.
Group 13 is our next group of amendments and the final group of amendments, and these relate to the review and implementation of the Act. Amendment 90 is the lead amendment. Siân Gwenllian to move the amendment.
Thank you very much. Our aim with the amendments in this group is a simple but important one, namely to ensure that Welsh Ministers publish a clear and transparent report on their review of how this Bill operates in practice and what its real impact is on the system and the people it is intended to support.
Referring back to the discussion we had earlier on the ‘ask and act’ duty, I did say that we do strongly sympathise with the principles underpinning it. I want to see this duty operate effectively and, in the longer term, I want to see the duty be expanded to include a wider range of public bodies, where appropriate, in order to strengthen those vital preventative elements in this area. That’s why having a statutory report is so vital—not just to measure impact, although that is important in itself, but also it is also to guide the next steps. Such a report would offer a clear evidence base to determine what further improvements are needed moving forward, and whether the time has come to include further public bodies within the scope of the duty. And this could include the police, of course, if those powers were devolved to Wales, in due course, in accordance with the calls made by the Senedd.
A statutory report would provide a deliberate review point to assess how 'ask and act' is working on the ground, and it would also allow us to reflect on the experience of the bodies already within the scope of the duty. And as I said, we could consider, carefully, whether the duty should be extended. I have listened carefully to the arguments made by teachers and GPs regarding the significant pressures that they are currently facing, and that’s exactly why we abstained on those votes. In our opinion, excluding them at this time—at this time—is the right decision. But in moving forward, of course, that situation could change.
Our final amendment in this group is also very important. It ensures that the department dealing with intentional manipulation is not put in operation in line with the broader provision on intentionality. That is, we don’t want to see intentionality ending before intentional manipulation comes in, and vice versa. So, the objective with this simple, practical amendment is to outline clearly that those two things shouldn’t be implemented at the same time. It doesn’t make sense, legislatively or operationally, having them running side by side. And so the amendment does ensure clarity within the Bill and avoids inconsistency in implementing it.
So, on that basis, our amendments in this group will strengthen the way forward. I again thank the Cabinet Secretary for co-operating in a constructive way as we discuss these particular amendments. Setting a clear requirement to publish a statutory report would ensure accountability, strengthen the legislation and provide the necessary mechanism to ensure that the 'ask and act' duty can evolve responsibly and in a way that is based on evidence as we move forward.
That's my final contribution in this discussion this afternoon, and I do look forward to Stage 4 and to seeing this important Bill moving forward and becoming part of the statue book here in Wales.
I'm sure everyone will be pleased that this is also my final contribution this evening. [Laughter.] I will not be moving amendment 64 because it achieves exactly the same thing as amendment 94 through Siân Gwenllian, and I encourage everyone to throw their weight behind that amendment.
In terms of amendment 65, it would see the abolition of differences in entitlement related to priority need and the abolition of differences in entitlement related to intentional homelessness come into force no later than 31 March 2028. Why that deadline, you might ask? Well, the abolition of priority need and intentionality are crucial to the establishment of a homelessness system that is trauma informed and person centred. However, as it stands, it's extremely disappointing to read that the explanatory memorandum does not commit to the removal until 2031—not in the seventh Senedd, but in the eighth Senedd.
Organisations frequently see the intentionality clause being misinterpreted and misused in ways that do not align with the views of this Senedd, and do not align with the reasons why this law was brought in the first place. Very recent examples of misuse of the intentionality clause from Shelter Cymru casework include this: a person being found to intentionally have made themselves homeless because they exited temporary accommodation to stay with family after contracting scabies from the poor conditions of the house. Another person was found intentionally homeless for refusing temporary accommodation in the same local area as their abuser. This could carry on until 2031 if my amendments don't pass.
Conversations with both experts with experience and front-line workers expose the huge problem, with the assumption that a person has intentionally made themselves homeless. Often this is a misinterpretation of an unmet support need, unsuitable accommodation, a call for help, fear of abuse, exploitation of criminal activity and, in some cases, people generally thinking they are doing the best thing to avoid falling into debt. Clearly, the abolishment is needed, but you may be wondering whether 31 March 2028 is too early. Well, it's not, and here's why: research from Scotland, where there has been a phased implementation of abolishing priority need, demonstrates that stakeholders feel the change could have been significantly shortened. And many Welsh local authorities are already operating without priority need, and the use of intentionality is very rare. In 2024-25, there were only 240 priority-need judgments recorded by local authorities in Wales, and 43 per cent of those came from a single authority, with just eight local authorities recorded as utilising this test. And over the course of the same year, only 87 people, 0.65 per cent of eligible applicants, were deemed intentionally homeless across all local authorities in Wales. Clearly, it is not anticipated that the abolition of priority need and intentionality would cause large case loads and would cause case loads to significantly increase. So, why the delay, Cabinet Secretary? Remember that these policy changes would make a significant difference to vulnerable people. I once again thank the homeless charities that have helped me and have supported these amendments. Diolch yn fawr.
The 'ask and act' duty represents a significant cultural shift in how public services in Wales identify and respond to the risk of homelessness and I do understand the desire to ensure that its implementation is subject to clear, timely scrutiny. Members will be aware that section 38 of the Bill already places a statutory duty on Welsh Ministers to review the operation and effect of the changes made by this Act and to publish a report within four years of the Act coming fully into force. However, I accept that this broad review of the Act may not allow us to examine the early operation of 'ask and act' at the most meaningful point in time.
The amendments tabled by Siân Gwenllian seek to address this. Collectively, amendments 90-93 ensure that 'ask and act' is reviewed earlier and on its own terms, while preserving the broader Act-wide review required under section 38. l'll take these amendments in turn.
Amendment 90 amends section 38 to remove the requirement that the Act-wide review must itself include a report covering every part of the Act. This reflects the intention for a separate, earlier reporting duty specifically on 'ask and act', avoiding unnecessary duplication between reports.
Amendment 91 creates a dedicated reporting requirement. It requires Welsh Ministers to publish a report on the operation and effect of section 94A—the 'ask and act' duty—within two years of the 'ask and act' provisions coming into force. This will allow sufficient time for training and guidance on the provisions to be embedded and for early evidence to emerge, enabling Welsh Ministers to respond quickly to what is learnt.
Amendment 92 adjusts section 38(3) so that the Act-wide review focuses on the remaining changes made by the Act, recognising that 'ask and act' will already have been subject to its own targeted review and published report. This maintains clarity across the Bill’s reporting framework.
Amendment 93 provides flexibility around the timing of the Act-wide review by allowing Welsh Ministers to undertake the review of individual changes when the relevant provisions are substantially in force. Given the phased commencement approach we are taking to the legislation, the amendment ensures that the review process can align more closely with delivery in practice, rather than being tied to a single date for the Act as a whole.
These amendments provide a coherent and proportionate review structure. They ensure that 'ask and act', one of the most significant reforms in the Bill, receives a timely, focused review without creating overlapping duties or conflicting deadlines. At the same time, the amendments preserve the integrity of the broader review of the Act at section 38, and ensure that scrutiny remains robust across the legislation. For those reasons, I am supportive of amendments 90-93 and invite Members to agree to those.
Turning to amendment 65 from Rhys ab Owen, this proposes a fixed commencement date of March 2028 for the abolition of priority need and intentionality. I understand entirely the desire to see these tests removed as soon as possible. They are inconsistent with the trauma-informed, person-centred system that we are building, and the Bill already commits to abolishing them. However, the evidence from stakeholders and from all three committees could not have been clearer. These provisions must come at the end of implementation, once the prevention duties, allocations practice and the 'ask and act' duty have bedded in, and once the system has the capacity to manage the wider duties safely.
Siân Gwenllian to reply. No. So, amendment 90. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 90. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against.
Are there any objections? [Objection.] There is objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 92. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, 11 against. Amendment 92 is agreed.
Yes, it's moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 66. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed.
It is. Are there any objections to amendment 65? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 65. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 65 is not agreed.
That means that we have reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill, and I declare that all sections of and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed.
We're continuing with our efforts to bring empty properties back into use. In December, following the findings of an independent evaluation, I announced the extension of the empty homes grant, including the piloting of the removal of the requirement for a local authority financial contribution. I'm delighted that a further three local authorities have agreed to participate in the grant next year, with, hopefully, more to join. We've already published the handbook of empty properties in Wales, providing practical, step-by-step guidance to local authorities, community groups and partners on identifying, intervening in and bringing empty homes back into use.
Meanwhile, Leasing Scheme Wales goes from strength to strength, with all 22 local authorities now signed up and over 480 properties under the scheme. I'll also remind Members that last month we published the 'Rural Housing Action Guide for Wales', which will support delivery in areas where affordability pressures, small sites and environmental constraints often intersect. Alongside this, a further year of funding has been made available for rural housing enablers whose role in brokering schemes, engaging communities and unlocking land has already contributed directly to homes delivered towards the 20,000 target.
Community-led housing is another area of importance, where continued support through Cwmpas and the Perthyn project is enabling communities, particularly Welsh-speaking communities affected by housing market pressures, to bring forward locally grounded solutions. I've recently awarded Cwmpas a further £204,000 of funding for next year. Elsewhere, Tai ar y Cyd is central to our drive to build homes better and faster. We're supporting modern methods of construction, standardised design and off-site manufacturing, which will improve performance, reduce whole-life costs and cut embodied carbon. I've awarded an additional £270,000 to the award-winning partnership, further strengthening its role in accelerating high-quality affordable housing delivery.
Deputy Llywydd, long-term certainty, backed by record social housing capital, with investment exceeding £2 billion over this Senedd term—including £466 million in this financial year alone—has enabled local authorities, housing associations and delivery partners to plan, invest and deliver at scale. Taken all together, this represents a level of delivery and system change that should not be underestimated. Housing supply is increasing. Empty homes are being brought back into use. Rural and community-led schemes are being unblocked. Quality and sustainability are improving. First-time buyers are getting on the property ladder, and record levels of investment continue to underpin the whole programme. Most importantly, people’s lives are being changed as a result.
Housing delivery at this scale has not been easy. It's required determination, flexibility and partnership in the face of global and domestic pressures well beyond our control. But the direction of travel is clear: we're delivering on our programme for government and laying strong foundations for the next Senedd term. As I said last week, a good home builds confidence, it supports better health, and gives every child the foundation to thrive. I urge all parties to commit to this ambitious programme of housing across social, private and intermediate sectors over the next Senedd term and beyond.
Finally, I want to thank local authorities, housing associations, planners, builders, community groups and partners across Wales. The homes being delivered today, and those in the pipeline for the future, are the result of their commitment and expertise. Diolch.
Cabinet Secretary, you have also made reference to the fact that you have simplified and strengthened support for SME builders. However, you made no mention of the serious shortage of workers in construction and energy-efficiency retrofit roles in Wales, which will seriously affect these SMEs. Maybe you haven't realised, but this shortfall poses a major challenge to delivering more homes. As mentioned last week, the Construction Industry Training Board and Welsh construction forums estimate that Wales would need around 11,000 additional construction workers by 2028. Meanwhile, 76 per cent of Welsh construction firms report that a lack of skilled tradespeople, particularly roofers, bricklayers, plumbers, heating, ventilation and air conditioning specialists, plasterers and those with sustainable building or new technology skills, is delaying projects.
You have mentioned at length funding packages and loan schemes, but failed to acknowledge that the industry is struggling. Specialist roles required for net zero retrofit, including retrofit co-ordinators, building-envelope specialists and energy assessors, are all also in short supply, which is compounded by demographic trends and declining training opportunities. Apprenticeship numbers have fallen, with cuts projected to reduce new construction apprenticeships at a time when employers struggle to attract younger workers, have an ageing workforce and a shrinking future talent pool. Given the urgent need for thousands of additional construction and retrofit workers to meet Wales's housing goals, where is the support for them? There need to be specific targets and strategies to grow the skilled workforce year on year, which I note you have remained absolutely silent on.
As you are aware, analysis has consistently pointed out that, even with the claimed increases in delivery, housing supply remains insufficient to address homelessness and long waiting lists. Figures have noted that social housing delivery has historically fallen short of targets, and homelessness has increased significantly in recent years. Meanwhile, market evidence points to persistent issues with affordability, including reports that Wales remains among the least affordable parts of Britain for first-time buyers, despite housing delivery claims. If the stated focus on delivery has not—
Finally, a suitable and accessible home should be a basic right, but under the TACP guidance on housing standards, it says quite clearly that accessibility should be adopted where it's cost-effective to do so. What exactly does that mean? It would be useful to know exactly what that means. I'd also like to know whether you think that we need to revise that guidance, the guidance around accessibility, in order to make it more fit for purpose and to ensure that new homes in Wales are genuinely suitable for the needs of the people who need them. Thank you.
I've also been holding a series of round-tables with local authorities on a regional basis, and each of those meetings has focused on the implementation of the taskforce recommendations. So, I've been speaking to them directly about their roles, and I've also had some really good discussions with all health boards on the availability of land.
Dirprwy Lywydd, after weighing up the arguments and considering the available evidence, I have come to the conclusion that continuing the minimum price and updating it to reflect inflation is the most responsible step. It is a modest step, but one that prioritises people's well-being and the sustainability of our health services in the long term.
The PSAP must be maintained and reviewed. New section 63B sets out a rigorous requirement to review the PSAP every eight weeks or when circumstances change, and section 5 of the Bill provides the applicant with a right to request a review of their PSAP at any time during which the local housing authority is required to maintain the plan, rendering the purpose of amendment 35 entirely unnecessary. These strong safeguards ensure that PSAPs are properly assessed, kept under review and given due consideration in decisions on the suitability of accommodation.
In Wales local housing authorities must already assess whether accommodation is suitable for each member of the household when discharging homelessness functions. I note Rhys's reference to recent case law. Taken together, the provisions within the Bill ensures that the Bill adequately addresses the issues arising from the cases that I believe lie behind these amendments. Amendment 33, tabled by Rhys, and amendment 67, tabled by Joel, are therefore unnecessary. The Bill sets out a comprehensive set of requirements to provide a trauma-informed, person-centred framework to respond to homelessness. It's unclear to me, therefore, what additional purpose these amendments serve. They are unnecessary and duplicative, and I urge Members to vote against them. [Interruption.] Easier said than done on that one. [Laughter.]
'certain circumstances where people may benefit from a fresh start'.
And finally, Llywydd, amendments 40 and 47 would assist those seeking recovery from misuse of drugs and other substances. This is supported by 'Ending homelessness in Wales: a legislative review' report published in 2023. This found, for example, that:
'Being forced to remain in a particular area, in close proximity to connections related to their substance use and risk of criminal exploitation, can have a negative impact on an individual’s recovery.'
They also heard the following from an expert on the matter:
'Many people want to move out of area as they have connections to drug use or violence in their local area. The current law does not take this into consideration and people are trapped in a cycle of homelessness due to being unable to move away from their past if they don’t have local connection outside their area.'
It's a ridiculous rule that prevents people from getting the help they need. The evidence, Members of the Senedd, is clear and the exceptions are required. The help is needed. I look forward to the vote on each of those categories. Diolch yn fawr.
So, in conclusion, although we do sympathise with the intentions behind these amendments, we do firmly believe that the most solid, fair and sensible route is to use the framework of regulations to deal with special circumstances, rather than creating a complex and fragmented system on the face of the Bill itself.
Amendments 68 and 69 are linked, and make provision for applicants transferred to a local housing authority in England to be given certain information. Section 14(7) of the Bill makes changes to the law that applies to local housing authorities in England when a person is referred to them from Wales. The changes reflect the fact that priority need and intentionality will be abolished in Wales, but will remain in England, and that it is for local authorities in England to assess whether they owe duties to people seeking their assistance under the law that applies there.
It places a requirement on housing authorities in Wales to provide specific information to an applicant when they're referring them to an authority in England. This includes confirmation of which duty will be owed by the authority in England, an explanation of that duty and confirmation of rights to review that will apply under the law applying in England. Section 16 of the Bill already requires housing authorities in Wales to notify an applicant of a decision to refer them to an authority in another area, the reasons why they have taken this decision, the effect on their entitlements, and their rights of review under the law in Wales. It is for local housing authorities in England to determine what duties apply to a person that is referred to them, in accordance with the law that applies there.
The Bill already strikes the right balance by ensuring that people who are referred to housing authorities in England are treated by those authorities as having applied for homelessness assistance. It is for those receiving authorities to determine what duties apply under the law applicable in England. To go further and to have Welsh local housing authorities specify which duties will be owed by the authority in England risks overstepping, and has the potential of causing confusion. I strongly urge Members to reject amendments 36 to 49, 68 and 69.
I have serious concerns about the subjectivity of the term 'safely', which would result in unnecessary confusion and complexity in implementation. The amendments raise serious risks around unintended consequences. They may well lead to more people being excluded from services, depending on how local authorities seek to interpret 'safely'. Members are therefore asked to reject amendments 71 and 72.
Llywydd, I know that no-one in this Chamber will sit comfortably in defining how crucial homelessness duties might end. It is not something that I relish either. But there must be red lines; we cannot allow our housing workforce to suffer violence or threats at work, or our finite accommodation stock to be intentionally damaged or destroyed. We absolutely must allow local authorities to do what they need to do to protect people living in temporary accommodation. I therefore urge the Senedd to reject amendments 50, 51, 52, 71, 72 and 73.
Amendment 21, which I've tabled, clarifies that the new duties in sections 94A(5)(b), (5)(c), which form part of the 'ask and act' duty, do not affect the rights of those persons subject to the duty to secure vacant possession. This change is being made in response to feedback from housing associations who have raised concerns that the current drafting may have the unintended consequences of interfering with eviction proceedings.
I should make clear that I am of the strong view that 'ask and act' will be key in ensuring housing associations in Wales engage their local authority colleagues early to avoid homelessness. I expect them to work closely with local housing authorities, exhausting all relevant options to ensure homelessness does not occur. However, I note the excellent work under way across housing associations in Wales to end evictions into homelessness and the very low rate of evictions at the current time. It is because of this work and the ongoing commitment of housing associations to never evict into homelessness that this Bill does not legislate in relation to evictions.
It is an unfortunate truth that there will be some exceptional cases where a housing association is left with no choice but to begin eviction proceedings. In these cases, I expect them to work closely with local housing authorities, exhausting all relevant options to ensure homelessness does not occur. However, I do accept that, in the rare cases where evictions are necessary, housing associations must be able to access the legal system. The Bill does not seek to interfere with eviction proceedings and I am, therefore, of the view that making this small change to make this clear in the Bill is a pragmatic approach.
Amendment 74 aims to achieve the same aim, and I therefore ask Members to reject amendment 74 and support amendment 21. So, I therefore ask that Members resist non-Government amendments 53, 54, 66 and 74, and to vote in favour of Government amendments 1-20, 21, 22-27, 29 and 31.
Amendment 76 seeks to require guidance on information sharing and partnership working to support section 32, and amendment 77 sets requirements about the timing of publication. Since local authorities can only discharge the final duty into suitable accommodation, it follows that they will need to share relevant information and do so in accordance with existing arrangements to achieve this.
Good co-operation relies on information exchange that is necessary, proportionate, and in line with data protection legislation. I've made clear, on several occasions, that the most effective way to ensure information is shared in this way is through the use of information-sharing protocols. I'm committed to supporting our partners to develop these and my officials are already in touch with the Wales Accord on the Sharing of Personal Information team to identify ways to provide this support.
I must also say that the drafting of amendment 76 does not work in the way I suspect it was intended. In trying to require guidance to be given on information sharing and partnership working, the amendment inadvertently creates an unwanted adverse effect. It suggests, through the position of the inserted words and the reference to 'particularly', that the required guidance about 'good reasons', 'reasonable periods' and 'reasonable requests' can only be about information sharing and partnership working. We want the guidance to also relate to other things, such as the availability of suitable housing stock. So, leaving aside the merits of the intended effect, I cannot support it on technical grounds.
Amendment 77 will also not work as I suspect it was intended. The amendment would require guidance to be in place before enactment, but enactment occurs on Royal Assent. This would require the guidance to be published before the Bill receives Royal Assent, which would be unworkable. We suspect that the intention was for the guidance to be required before the coming into force of the section, rather than enactment, but that is not what the amendment would achieve.
Amendment 78 requires local housing authorities to have regard to the guidance, and as I have said, the broader amendments relating to this guidance don't work, so I suspect that this amendment may fall away. Regardless, an amendment to this effect is unnecessary. Section 98 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 already requires local authorities to have regard to guidance given by Welsh Ministers when they exercise their homelessness functions. I therefore urge all Members to reject amendments 57, 58, 75, 76, 77 and 78.
Amendment 62 requires that in applying the deliberate manipulation test, the local housing authority must write to the applicant informing them of their intention to apply the test and allow the applicant sufficient time to respond in writing. This amendment cannot be implemented effectively. As I've continuously expressed, it will be important that the implications of behaviour are discussed with applicants at an early stage in order to prevent unnecessary homelessness from occurring, and this will be provided for in guidance. However, in many cases, the behaviour that meets the test will only come to an authority's attention when it has been committed. In these cases, any warning correspondence will have no purpose.
Amendment 63 provides for the Welsh Ministers to prescribe in legislation a maximum time for which a deliberate manipulation test and any subsequent removal of reasonable preference may take effect for an applicant. Again, such an amendment is unworkable and it takes no account of localised pressure such as the accessibility of social housing and availability of temporary accommodation. The amendment also prompts concern regarding unintended consequences. We do not want to risk people remaining in temporary accommodation for longer than they have to, or disincentivise use of wider forms of accommodation. An unfeasible time frame could lead applicants being deprioritised for longer and undermine the flexibility local authorities have around application of the test, creating a race for the longest time frame, not the shortest, and putting additional pressure on social housing allocation.
The introduction of the deliberate manipulation test was a recommendation of the expert review panel and it's been very carefully drafted to ensure it provides balance between accountability and support. Guidance will play a critical role in implementing the test and the Government will continue to work with partners to develop this guidance. I am therefore unable to support amendments 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 and urge the Senedd to vote against them.
Amendment 85 ensures the Welsh Ministers must make regulations for and in connection with accessible housing registers, reinforcing the commitment to make the regulations and providing certainty to partners about delivery. For the accessible housing register, which is a register of accommodation rather than individuals, amendment 86 requires regulations to provide for general publication of information on the register's operation in allocations.
Amendment 87 ensures regulations cover the creation, collection, collation and publication of information relating to the register or its operation. It provides symmetry with the amendment relating to the common housing register, while allowing the regulatory detail to be tailored to how accessible housing registers are managed locally.
Amendment 88 clarifies that functions under the regulations can be conferred on the Welsh Ministers or local housing authorities. As with common housing registers, it will ensure functions can be placed on Welsh Ministers within the regulations.
In closing, Llywydd, I again thank Siân for her positive engagement on these amendments, and I'm pleased that, together, we have been able to strengthen the Bill and enable improved transparency and public understanding of our social housing system. I encourage Members to support amendments 81 to 88 and reject amendment 79.
Local authorities in particular have been frank about the pressures they face. Temporary accommodation is under intense strain, case loads are high and housing supply is constrained. They are already restructuring to move towards earlier prevention, but they need the time and space that the phased approach provides. A fixed backstop date in 2028 would cut across that careful sequencing. It would bring the most resource-intensive reforms into force before the system is ready, increase pressure on temporary accommodation, and undermine the benefits the Bill is designed to deliver. We remain fully committed to abolishing priority need and intentionality, but we must do it in a way that's safe, sustainable and supports the whole system. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 65.
Turning to amendments relating specifically to the commencement of the deliberate manipulation test and the removal of the intentionality test, my thanks go once again to Siân Gwenllian for tabling amendment 94, which applies to the commencement of the deliberate manipulation test and abolition of the intentionality test. As we have discussed, the Bill introduces a new deliberate manipulation test. Where applicants are found to have deliberately manipulated the homelessness system to gain access to social housing, the local housing authority may remove reasonable preference conferred through homelessness.
The Bill also removes the intentionality test, which is one of the tests currently used to determine entitlement to homelessness assistance, and if an applicant is found to be intentionally homeless, they will not be owed the main homelessness duty. These tests apply in different legislative systems and lead to different consequences. However, I understand why many of our partners are of the view that the tests should not run together and risk cumulative disadvantage to applicants. The effect of amendment 94 is to ensure the deliberate manipulation test cannot commence until the provision removing the intentionality test is commenced. I've previously outlined my commitment to sequence commencement of sections 10 and 35 to prevent any unintended consequences of both tests running at the same time. I'm happy to show that commitment further, through the support of amendment 94. Amendment 64 seeks to achieve the same thing. Whilst I, therefore, support Rhys ab Owen’s intention, I must reject the amendment, as it duplicates amendment 94.
Therefore, once again, I thank both Siân and Rhys for tabling these amendments and call on Members to support amendments 90 through to 94 and to reject amendments 64 and 65. Diolch, Llywydd.